News

Greetings!

There are two articles of interest in this newsletter:  The first one is confirming a point I had a few months ago, and the second topic is…OK, I’m not sure what the point of it is, but it’s in the blog, so watch the video.

Topic #1:  Dynamic Warm-up Prevents Injury

A couple months ago, I posted a review of many studies showing that static stretching does not reduce injury when done before athletics.  I had also stated that a dynamic warm-up does help prevent injury and we would talk more about it in an upcoming newsletter.  Well, right on cue, this study just came out:

This study had 90 high school coaches and 1558 athletes.  The coaches were randomly selected to be in a “control” group, or an “intervention” group.  The intervention group received formal training on how to implement a 20-minute neuromuscular warm-up before practices and a shorter version before games. The warm-up consisted of jogging, dynamic motion (e.g., skipping, side shuffle), strengthening exercises (e.g., heel raises, squats), plyometrics (e.g., squat jumps, tuck jumps), and agility runs. Coaches were also taught to distinguish proper and improper form, and how to use verbal cues to promote proper techniques. Finally, coaches were provided a tool kit with DVDs, laminated cards, and printed educational materials.

On the other hand, the “control” coaches were told to use their regular warm up routine.

In the end,  athletes performing the dynamic warm-up from the “intervention” coaches had lower rates of gradual-onset lower extremity injuries, acute-onset noncontact lower extremity injuries, noncontact ankle sprains, lower extremity injuries treated surgically, noncontact knee sprains, and noncontact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. All these injuries were statistically significantly less in the warm up group. Prevention numbers varied; you would need 46 athletes to do the warm-up to prevent 1 noncontact lower extremity injuries and up to 191 athletes to prevent a noncontact ACL injuries.

Topic #2:  Training in the rain with some Kenyans

There are currently no marathoners ranked in the top 20 in the world that are not Kenyan.  That is unbelievable for a country of 40 million.  How do they do it?  Is it training at altitude, genetics, shear determination, training volume?  Who knows.  This video shows that it’s certainly not the amount of money put into training facilities.  (yes, I know this is Asbel Kiprop who is the 1500 m world champ – not a marathoner, but you get the point)

I see two ways of looking at this:  #1) The hard work that they put in is way beyond what most Westerners would do (try getting some prima donna athletes on a field that looks like that, in the rain – not a chance)  or #2) the Kenyans nudged and winked at each other when the video was made and now they are sitting back laughing at the silly Americans who are going to start running around dragging tires behind them and tying bicycle inner tubes up to each other.

Well, it has been a bit of an interruption in getting these newsletters out. Sometimes life gets in the way. Two Ironman this year was a bit too much I think. Lesson learned…

Many runners and triathletes in the northeast are hitting their offseason right about now, so I thought it would be a good time to have a newsletter that gets back to running fundamentals. No research to look over in this edition, but very important for running technique training!

Most running coaches employ the use of “butt kicks”, “high knees” and “B skips” as drills to help runners with form and strength. These drills can be credited to a man named Gerard Mach. Mach was appointed the Canadian National T&F coach in 1976 and was a heck of a runner himself. Mach developed many training tools that have stood the test of time.

Basically, the running gait cycle can be broken down into 4 parts: A, B, C and D.

• “A” consists of the upward swing of the thigh
• “B” starts at the end of “A” (obviously) and then the lower leg swings outward like a pendulum and then comes back to footstrike relatively close to under the center of mass.  It is sort of the “pawing” action of the leg.
• “C” is essentially the “push off”, so it entails the end of “B” until the foot leaves the ground.
• “D” is from when the foot leaves the ground, swings upward toward the butt and the thigh returns to a vertical position.

Returning back to Canada for a minute, I am privileged to have contact with Blaise DuBoise , a physical therapist and consultant for the Canadian National T&F team. Blaise developed a video which outlines the running form broken down into the 4 sections and has given me permission to use the video:

You may be wondering what the point of all this is. Well, now that we have split the running cycle into 4 segments, we can begin training the fundamentals of each motion:

• "A" skip (AKA "high knees")
• "B" skip
• "C" (leg drive/push off)
• "D" skip (AKA "butt kicks")

Again, Blaise has permitted me to use his video:

These drills can be easily done during your warm up routine or done on their own a few times a week.   The girl in the video does these drills very well, so don't expect to look like that when you start doing them! Which brings me to my next point. These drills have to be done correctly. If not done correctly, you will ingrain faulty movement patterns. Start out with these as slower deliberate motions. In other words rather than "A skips", perform them as "A marches" and "B marches" then progress to skips. For the "B" skips, the emphasis is on pulling the lower leg and foot backward at the bottom. I frequently give this drill to people who tend to overstride because it trains you to pull back before footstrike. Keep proper posture and arm movements. For the "C", at first, practice doing them like this:

Lastly, for those interested, there is a great summation of Gerard Mach's drills done by Vern Gambetta (Consultant coach for Nike Oregon Project. Edited Track Technique, the technical journal of USA Track & Field. Associate editor of the IAAF technical journal, New Studies in Athletic. Co-founder of USA Track & Field coaching education program.) There are so many reasons to do these drills, but he sums up his point of view quite well here.

For years, women were told to take long-term post-menopausal hormone replacement drugs…that is until someone did a study on the topic with 16,000 women over a long term.  Much to everyone’s surprise, the hormone replacement drugs were found to increase heart attacks, strokes and breast cancer.  It’s amazing what happens to a commonly held belief when someone actually studies it!  The same can be said for stretching before running.  We were all told to stretch before running based on…what?  When the subject is actually studied, we find through an abundance of research that stretching before running not only doesn’t help reduce injury, (some say it may increase injury) but stretching actually hurts performance.  I read about this frequently, yet just when I think the idea of pre-run stretching is dead, I see a group of runners stretching like mad before they run.  I feel like Michael Douglas sitting on the edge of the bathtub:  I thought Glenn Close was dead at the bottom of the bathtub, but then she sits bolt upright with a knife in her hand – yikes, she’s back!

Hopefully (at least for the people who read it) this newsletter will be Michael Douglas’ wife shooting pre-run stretching in the heart.

…too dramatic? 

The Evidence:

In the interest of not getting boring, I will try to not break down every study, but give a one or two sentence summary with a link to each research paper.  Try to remember that we are talking about “static” stretching here (i.e. stretch and hold), not dynamic stretching like leg swings, hip circles, scorpions etc.  There is actually research supporting dynamic warm ups before running.  We’ll cover proper pre-run dynamic warm-up routine in an upcoming newsletter.  OK, on to the research:

Injury:

• There are quite a few studies trying to figure out whether or not stretching reduces injuries in sports.  Lucky for us, there are other researchers who examine all of these other individual studies and step back to come up with a consensus statement about what all the other individual studies have said.  These review studies all conclude that static stretching before sports generally does not reduce injury (2002 study, 2003 study and 2004 study)
• More specific to running, the USATF recruited 3000 runners to either stretch or not stretch before running for a period of 3 months.  In the end, there were no differences in injury rates (16% on both sides).  (2010 study here)

Performance:

The evidence that pre-run static stretching reduces performance is much more clear.  I haven’t taken the time to list most studies.  Generally, these studies are performed by analyzing the “running economy” of the subject runner.  Running Economy is usually calculated by measuring the amount of oxygen consumed by the runner at a given pace (think fuel economy in a car).

• Runners who did static stretching before endurance running (65% VO2max run) had worse performance than those who didn’t stretch before the run (full text 2010 study)
• Runners who stretched before running had worse 20m sprint performance (2005 study)
• Runners who were less flexible had better running economy (2009 study)
• Stretching before cycling also reduces cycling efficiency and time to exhaustion (2011 study here)
• Another cycling study showing stretching before cycling hurts performance (September 2011 study here)

Why is the running economy worse after stretching?  Well, the researchers think that it’s due to the stored elastic energy and stiffness in a muscle.  In other words, when we run, there are certain phases of the gait cycle where certain muscles undergo a stretch, then recoil mechanism.  If you reduce the stiffness in the muscle/tendon, then there is less recoil.  Less elastic recoil means more work needs to be done by actually contracting the muscle.  Hence, more work.

I know this newsletter may be touching a “flat earth” nerve with some people.  I’d love to hear feedback.  Just reply to the email – don’t boil my family’s pet rabbit.

Greetings!

This is a follow up to the last newsletter concerning building strength in the foot muscles. Yes, on its surface, this sounds like a very tedious, boring and insignificant topic. However, the inability to control the stability of the foot has paramount implications on the rest of the leg and whole body posture. I may be biased here, but this is a must read for anyone with feet.

Below, you will find what I find is the best exercise for the intrinsic foot muscles (muscles that start and end in the foot). There are different methods of accomplishing the same task: For example, here is the way the guys at The Running Clinic do it, while here is the way the Speed Clinic at UVA does it(#3 on the page). Personally, I prefer the way I show in this newsletter. In any case, it underscores the importance of being able to control and activate the muscles of the foot if you want to prevent injury.

The Short Foot Exercise

There are researchers, innovators and pioneers that are held in high esteem in every field. In the world of rehabilitation, Vladamir Janda is one such individual. A Czechoslovakian (yes, I had to spell check that) physiotherapist who pioneered and developed many ideas that are the foundation for rehab principles used today. One of his principles is the development of stability in the lower leg through the “Short Foot Exercise” (SFE). (what do they say about people with short feet?)

By training the foot with the SFE and gradually progressing though more difficult stages, we can improve the control of the foot muscles and in turn, create a more stable base of support for the leg, hips and the rest of the body. The ability to make a “short foot” really isn’t about strength of the foot muscles, rather it’s about the ability to use and control the intrinsic foot muscles. In other words, the ability to have these muscles “turn on”.

For those more detail oriented, here’s a study showing how the SFE can significantly improve ankle stability in patients with chronic ankle instability. Here is a video of a simple squat. Note the left ankle deviating inward due to the foot arch collapsing, but then this is corrected using the “short foot”, which stabilizes the ankle and foot:

OK, enough with the preamble. I have made a video below showing the progression on how to, and how not to do the SFE. The idea is that you want to make the foot shorter with a bigger arch, but do so without curling the toes and without rolling the ankle in or outward. You must keep the metatarsal heads pressed down. Most people have difficulty doing this at first, but once you get it, you can practice this while you’re barefoot in the shower, brushing your teeth or whatever. We usually have to start people with “passive modeling”, meaning we make their foot do what it should, so they get the feel of it.

It’s surprising how many people cannot do this action on their own. After we let their feet “get a feel” for how it’s supposed to be done, we move on to “active modeling”, where the patient tries to mimic the movement with our gentle assistance, then without any assistance. After that, they do the SFE while weight bearing, and finally doing the SFE while weight bearing during activities such as one legged balance, single arm rows and finally medicine ball catches and throws for example.

If you missed the barefoot/minimalist presentation at The Running Store last Thursday, the remainder of your life will have a significant void in it     Thanks to The Running Store for the opportunity to talk.

I am of the opinion that doing some barefoot running every week will gradually change many faulty mechanics and, as that changes, you can transition into less bulky of a shoe.  The “barefoot” part for most runners however, I feel is merely a tool – not a complete mutiny against shoes .  Just like doing speed work/intervals or “A” skips and “B” skips and butt kicks, barefoot running can be done briefly a few times per week.  This is certainly not a new concept.  For decades, coaches have told their runners to do some barefoot running.

The presentation at the Running Store mostly consisted of what changes occur in stride mechanics when you take your shoes off and what the advantages of going to a more minimalist shoe would be.   One thing we never covered in the presentation is what I want to talk about today – the issue of “foot strengthening” via wearing shoes with little to no support.

(Yes, that picture was photo shopped, no you can’t do foot sit-ups to get a six-pack in your foot)

When the Nike Free emerged, the big selling point that Nike had was the idea that modern footwear has weakened the muscles of our feet and lower legs.  As an analogy, you would get very weak neck muscles if you wore a cervical brace for your whole life, yet, they asserted, this is what shoes were doing to our feet.   By wearing the incredibly flexible Nike Free, they told us that we could strengthen the muscles and by association, reduce injury.  They wanted the public to “Train Your Feet” as seen in this brochure. The implication was, that weak feet lead to an unstable base of support for your legs and thus, more potential for injury.

So what of it then?  Can we really strengthen our foot muscles by wearing less shoe?  Unfortunately, we have very little evidence to go on here.  I can find tons of anecdotal stuff out there, but only 3 studies.  One is in a peer reviewed journal, the other two are studies presented at scientific meetings, but not published in peer reviewed journals.  Below, I have written a summary of each study and put a link to the study.  If you want to read them…have at it!  For those of you who don’t care and just want my opinion, just keep reading normally.

Two of the studies measured the “pre-study” foot strength and took MRI’s to measure the girth of the foot muscles.  Then, they had half the group train in Nike Free’s and a control group train in conventional shoes.  By “training” they meant skipping, running, aerobics etc.

In the end (about 6 months), the Nike Free group had increased strength in the foot muscles and increased size of the muscles in the feet.  In other words, wearing a less stiff and bulky shoes, the subjects did, in fact strengthen their foot muscles.  Based on these two studies (one funded by Nike) we can begin to form the idea that wearing miminalist shoes or going barefoot can strengthen the foot muscles.   Does this create a more stable base of support for the legs and in turn, reduce the potential for injury?  We simply don’t know.  It certainly sounds like a reasonable thought!  In the next few weeks, I hope to get a newsletter out showing a progression of foot strengthening exercises.

For those who are detail oriented, read on…

Study #1.  Found here

Studied 100 runners and took strength measurements of the feet and toes and MRI’s of their feet and lower legs (to measure the girth of the foot and lower leg muscles).  They were divided into two groups and that all had to do weekly exercises including running, skipping and aerobics for 6 months.  The difference was that one group was wearing conventional running shoes while the other group wore Nike Free’s.  The results?  The Nike Free group ended up with significant increase in the toe flexion strength and on the MRI’s, the flexor hallucis longus (the muscle that pushes the big toe down) was significantly larger after the experiment.  Some other muscles trended toward an increased girth, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Study #2.  Found here

This study looked at 50 individuals and the study was very similar to Study #1.  They took strength measurements and muscle belly girth measurments via MRi and then split the group in two – one group wearing Nike Free’s and the other group conventional running shoes.   This study was 5 months long but again, showed statistically significant changes in muscle strength and girth compared to the group wearing conventional shoes.

Study #3:  Full text of the study found here.

Basically, this study analyzed the foot arches of 1846 individuals in India who were skeletally mature (aka “adults”, but I’ve met many skeletally mature people who I hesitate to call “adults”).  In a nutshell, the researchers found that kids who were barefoot for the first 6 years of their life (the more formative years, I guess).  Of the kids that wore shoes regularly,  8.2% had flat feet, while 2.8% of barefoot kids had flat feet.   No other factors had any influence on the shape of their arches.

What does this third study tell us?   Not much, as far as I’m concerned.  First of all, it’s an observational study – not exactly strong.  Secondly, did the flat feet correlate to injury of foot problems later in life?  We don’t know – although that seems to be one of those urban legends.  Thirdly, this study assumes that measuring the height of the arch in a static position somehow correlates to the way the foot moves when walking or running.  I know of at least 6 well controlled studies that say static arch height doesn’t have any influence on the moving foot dynamics.

There is a significant movement in the running community toward barefoot/”natural” running, given the huge success of Christopher McDougall’s book “Born to Run” and other highly publicized research such as that of Daniel Leiberman. The biomechanical changes that occur when switching to a more natural running style should help reduce/prevent injuries. During all the excitement, many people switch to barefoot, Vibram Five Fingers or other minimalistic shoes without taking the time to weigh the pros and cons. Moreover, many if not most people, switch over too fast, too much, too soon. This discussion will outline the basics of the benefits as well as a basic outline of making the transition.
Compared to running shod (with shoes) three major changes occur when people run without shoes (barefoot or with Vibram’s – research shows the two to be quite similar)

What we know:
Running barefoot generally (but not always) causes people to:
1. Land with more of a midfoot/forefoot placement
2. Land with the foot closer to the center of mass (i.e. reduces overstriding)
3. Increase cadence
These 3 factors will result in:
1. Reduced joint loads (particularly at the knee and hip)
2. Reduced loading rate (the rate that the landing impact force is applied – reduced “pounding”)
3. Reduced horizontal braking forces

Given these three big changes that occur when running barefoot, it would follow that people who overstride, land with a heavy heelstrike and/or have a low cadence might benefit from incorporating some barefoot running into their weekly mileage. By doing this, these people would generally adopt a more “natural” running style and thereby reduce joint loads, loading rate and horizontal braking forces. As I stated above, these are all positive changes that should reduce/prevent injury. Unfortunately, sometimes our bodies hold on to what they know best and in some cases, people who kick off their shoes fail to transition to a lighter, shorter, quicker stride. In those people, some technical training is required or in some cases, they may not be candidates for the barefoot/minimalist movement.
At this point, I should add that in my opinion, that the addition of barefoot running as a training tool is a wonderful addition to the runners toolbox. However, I am of the opinion that it is a very small minority of people that could transition entirely to barefoot/Vibram running. Since the age of 2, most of us have spent the vast majority of time in cushioned, very supportive shoes. This reduces the loading capacity (ie. weakens) of our bones, ligaments and muscles of the foot. That being said, I believe it takes years to increase the “tissue tolerance” of these structures. I believe that this is the trap that many runners fall into, which is in reference to what I stated at the beginning, regarding “too fast, too much, too soon.” however, as a training tool to help adopt a more natural stride, barefoot/Vibram running is excellent, if done properly. “Barefoot” isn’t the important part. Instead, it’s the change in running style that barefoot running usually causes (i.e, less overstriding, faster step frequency and less heel striking) that is important.
As your running style gradually changes, you may be able to gradually transition the shoe that you use for your regular running miles into a more minamalist shoe (i.e., less heel to forefoot drop, lighter weight etc.) Consult your local running specialty shoe store about this.
If you are interested in incorporating barefoot/Vibram running into your program with the goal being to change your form naturally, please see the program I have included below (adopted and modified from Blaise DuBoise, PT of runningclinic.ca). This program can be easily incorporated into your weekly mileage.
Please remember, consult your health care provider before beginning this program. Also, should any significant pain arise from barefoot running, stop the program and seek attention from a health care provider. When running barefoot, please do so on a treadmill or area you are sure contains no sharp objects.
• W=walk R=run ‘=minute
• Start and end each session with a 5 minute walk

• Example: week 1, day 1 = start with 5 minute walk, the run one minute and walk one minute 3 times. End with a 5 minute walk.  You are done for this day.
• 5 days a week are used, they do not need to be consecutive days

• Depending on your symptoms: Go back one week or take 1 or 2 days off, Repeat the same workout or Skip one or two workouts

A special thanks to Pete Larson over at www.runblogger.com for helping me out with getting access to the full text of this research paper. I met Pete in February at a conference. Nice guy, great blog to read if you get a chance it.
This editorial piece was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine a few days ago. The article essentially is criticizing the idea of taking medications to fix our health ailments instead of making better lifestyle choices to help avoid certain health problems in the first place. There are a lots of referenced studies and statistics in the article, but my own take on it was that our society continues to lazily stroll further into the idea that we can all do what we want and in the end, there will be this giant safety net called “medicine.” Fortunately, this article points out that for many conditions, drugs are not nearly as effective as lifestyle changes, and it’s about time that this country gets some self responsibility in our choices. Yes, I clearly understand the soapbox I’m standing on, and yes, I fully understand that I’m preaching to the crowd here – most, if not all of you on this distribution list are runners, so you have likely made good choices to begin with.

The impetus for this editorial in the journal was the approval of the $1 billion government drug development center to help create medicines. The authors of the editorial go on to argue that spending our tax payer dollars would be put to better use by promoting a proper lifestyle instead of the idea of another “magic bullet” drug.

I don’t want to bore you with statistics, so here are some bullet points:

· Healthcare spending is spiraling out of control

· Many diseases/conditions (obesity, diabetes, depression etc) are increasing at an alarming rate

· Sedentary and nutritionally sparse lifestyles are increasing.

· “What happens in a society in which people are told that pills are available to put them to sleep, wake them up, stimulate them, calm them down and control appetite and body weight? We argue that the answer is in the growing number of people with mental disorders including depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, deteriorating nutritional status and increasing rates of obesity unprecedented in human history.”

Again, not to bore you with statistics, but the authors go on to show some examples:

· [Patients with high cholesterol/blood lipids] who participated in just three or four sessions with a dietitian had a reduction in their total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which is equivalent to the effect of taking statins (about 15 mg/dl over the course of the year).

· Another study of 3234 patients at high risk for Type II diabetes compared lifestyle changes vs. drugs to prevent the onset of diabetes. Lifestyle intervention was approximately twice as effective as drugs in preventing diabetes.

To sum it all up, the authors state,

“Rather than continuing to pour more resources into developing single-agent, magic-bullet approaches intended to cure diseases that are easily prevented, we propose a radical idea: to develop means for disseminating and implementing programs of lifestyle improvement proven to enhance individual and population-level health…We understand that while changes in diet and physical activity are conceptually easy, they are diabolically difficult to do in practice. The promise of even easier solutions to cure the consequences of years of sloth needs to be debunked.“

Obviously, there are many conditions that are unavoidable and many conditions that drugs are absolutely needed for. However, many conditions are simply due to lifestyle choices and most people are making the wrong choices. This is difficult to do when all we see are quick fixes. For example, according to the NYT piece referenced above, drug companies spend about twice as much on marketing as they do on research.

If reading detailed research isn’t your cup of tea, here’s the executive summary:  If you strength train with very heavy resistance (>85% of your one rep max – (1RM)) along with your endurance training, you can improve your long-term endurance without any increase in muscle mass.  Yes, I know that may be contrary to intuition, but there you have it.  Other studies show that weight training with <80% of your 1RM just doesn’t cut it.  So, you have to lift heavy!  However, please don’t sue me when you herniate a disc trying to squat 532 pounds. Utilize a personal trainer if you want to go >85% of your 1RM – that’s what they’re there for.

OK, here are the details…

This study just came out in March of this year:  Effects of resistance training on endurance capacity and muscle fiber composition in young top-level cyclists. The gist of the relatively small study was that they had two groups of highly trained cyclists – one group continued with Endurance training alone (E group) while the other group added high resistance Strength training to their Endurance routine (SE group). For the SE group, they weight trained 2-3X/week and progressively increased the weight. They progressed over a period of a couple weeks to 4-6 reps of ≥85% of their 1RM. After 16 weeks of training, both the E and the SE groups improved their short term (5 min) cycling performance, but when it came to a 45 minute cycling, the endurance capacity increased only in the SE group (by 8%). Interestingly, the muscle fiber area and capillarization (# of blood vessels) was no different.

Take home message…

Combining strength training with endurance has shown equivocal results in different studies. However, when you dissect the studies, it turns out that long term endurance performance has not shown gains in the SE group when the subjects did low volume (<8 weeks duration) and/or low-intensity (<80% 1RM) strength training (found here, here and here). However, when the volume is high and the intensity is high (≥85% 1RM) there is significant improvements in long-term endurance capacity (found here, here, here and here)

Pretty much all of these studies concur that there is no change in muscle size because the normal increase in size that you would see is blunted because of the continued endurance training which is catabolic.

OK, so if there is no change in Vo2max, muscle size or capillarization, why do they get better at endurance capacity? The answer there is still unknown, but the theories are numerous. The one that makes the most sense to me is a change in economy of movement because of improved neuromuscular recruitment. Simply put, when you lift heavy, you learn how to utilize more muscle fibers and you become more coordinated in firing the muscles. Therefore, if you run or cycle at 70% of your Vo2 max, but your are recruiting more power with the same effort, you will go faster and use less oxygen.

It’s not every day your office is the feature in a story in the Washington Post.  Thanks to Joe and Lachlan for their testimonials.

Click here for the link:  A Game Changer for Injured Athletes

Ergogenic aids come and go and what is usually thought of as a breakthrough turns out to be another disappointment.  The idea of nitric oxide as an ergogenic aid is absolutely huge right now in the research.  I thought it was time to finally talk about it – even if it turns out to be a total flop, there is no harm in discussing it.

OK, I’m going to keep this as unscientific as possible. Partly because I don’t want to bore you, but mostly because I barely know what I’m talking about…;)

The big news in the science of sports supplementation in the past year involves – beet juice. More specifically, the high nitrate concentration in beet juice. Nitrate is abundant in vegetables and is converted in the body to nitric oxide. A flurry of studies lately have demonstrated that dietary nitrate reduces oxygen cost during exercise and thus, boost performance.  I have listed two studies below, but there are more.

Study 1: In a double-blind, placebo (PL)-controlled, crossover study, subjects consumed 500 ml/day of either beetroot juice (BRJ) or placebo for 6 consecutive days and completed a series of “step” moderate-intensity and severe-intensity exercise tests on the last 3 days. The oxygen consumption following the onset of moderate exercise was reduced by 19% in the BRJ condition. During severe exercise, oxygen consumption was reduced and the time-to-exhaustion was extended (BRJ 675 sec vs. 583 sec for placebo)

Study 2 (an important one released April 5, 2011): Researchers found a way to take the nitrates out of the beet juice, so they gave the athletes beet juice with nitrates and beet juice without nitrates as a placebo. Drinking 500 mL of beet juice with nitrates 2.5 hours before a cycling time trial improved 4 km TT time by 2.8% and 10 mile TT time by 2.7% vs beet juice without nitrates. In other words, the 4K time trial was 6.26 vs 6.45 min and the 16K dropped as well – 26.9 vs 27.7 min. Some of you may say “one minute for a 16K time trial? That’s not much!) OK, let’s put it in perspective…cyclists pay a couple thousand dollars for aero wheels. As shown on the Zipp wheels data, for a 1080 front and a sub9 disc wheel (total cost about $3200) you can expect to save 108 seconds…over a 40K race! That’s equivalent to 43 seconds over a 16K race, while the beet juice saved people 48 seconds over a 16K race. $3200 for wheels, or down some beetjuice. Hmmmm…….

The effects of nitric oxide have been known for years. There are some effects that we are not quite clear on, such as increasing mitochondrial action in the cells. We do know, however, that it causes vasodilation , or dilating blood vessels. Researchers think that this is how it helps get oxygen to the working muscles more efficiently.

Ironically, that is the same mechanism of action as Viagra. Indeed, pro athletes have already though of this. Roger Clemens was known to have Viagra in his locker, but only for “athletic” performance…not for “other” types of performance. BALCO founder Victor Conte was quoted as saying ” “It’s bigger than creatine. It’s the biggest product in nutritional supplements.” Also, at the Giro d’Italia, Italian police found 82 Viagra pills and syringes in the car of top cyclist Andrea Moletta.

Before you run out and buy beet juice, are there any side effects? Too early to tell, but possibly…you can read more about it here. Also, take it easy on the mouthwash. Yes, you read that correctly – take it easy on the mouthwash. In order for your body to benefit from the nitrates in the beetjuice, you first have to convert the nitrates to nitrites, then to nitric oxide. You need these little critters in your mouth called bacteria to do the conversion. Mouthwash kills the bacteria, hence no conversion. Yes, they’ve actually done studies on this. Read more here.