It has no nutritional value, but it is often referred to as a nutritional ergogenic aid (i.e., an external aid that improves performance).  It is absorbed quickly, and potentially affects all systems of the body since it is absorbed by most tissues.  Its positive effects include sharpened focus/alertness and glycogen sparing through the augmented use of body fast as a source of fuel.   Are you still baffled as to why there is a Starbucks on every block in every major city!

The question still remains: To caffeinate or not to caffeinate? 

In the 1970’s studies suggested caffeine enhanced endurance performance.  The studies suggested caffeine triggered the release of body fat to be used as a fuel source.  Stored carbohydrates (glycogen) is in limited supply in the body, and your body’s preferred source of energy, so preserving it would therefore increase performance. 

In the 1980’s studies found that caffeine did not alter exercise metabolism!  Although, those studies did not actually measure performance… go figure. 

Recent work has turned the scales yet again in favor of caffeine’s ergogenic effects.  Specifically, 3-9 mg of caffeine per kilogram of body weight about one hour prior to exercise has been shown to increase performance.  In practical terms, a person weighing 150 pounds should consume 200 mg of caffeine, which is equal to about 1 mug of drip-percolated coffee.  These studies observed well-trained or elite athletes however, so the interpretation is a little fuzzy for the weekend warrior.

 There are cautions and limitations, of course:

***Caffeine improves performance for events that last approximately 5 minutes at 90-100% intensity.  Sprint performance, on the other hand, is not improved.  The reasons for this are still relatively unknown.

***There are also side effects of caffeine ingestion that may outweigh the benefits: anxiety, jitters, inability to focus, insomnia, and irritability to name a few.

If you still want to ride the caffeine train, then know that the optimal dose is 3-6 mg/kg body weight.  Side effects are minimized at this dose, and for the elite out there, urine levels are legal at this dosage.

My professional opinion: Experiment!  You may be one of the lucky ones who gets to fill his/her water bottle with Columbian Bold.  More than likely, the dehydration, increased bowel movements, increased heart rate and body temperature, anxiety, and irritability will not prove to be helpful when standing at the starting line of your next marathon.

.

More is better—with oxygen, love, peace . . but NOT running.  The same is true for plenty of other healthy habits: too much iron in your diet leads to iron overload; Drink too much water and suffer water poisoning!  Some is good, more and more and more is not better.  Yet, people insist on pushing themselves until something breaks, and then blame it on the sport.

Let’s run the facts.  The risk of injury is higher when running, true.  But, consider why.  The increased injury risk is caused by impatience (i.e., pushing the speed and/or distance beyond what your body is trained for).  Yes, running produces higher ground reaction forces (i.e., impact forces) than

most other aerobic sports (basketball is a good example of a sport that produces greater impact forces), so your shock absorbing systems (knees, ankles, feet, and the kinetic chain from your toes to your tail bone) are stressed.  But it is the overzealous behavior of some runners who run further or faster sooner than later, that causes bodies to break down.  Here’s a video that supports the claim from Dr. Crane:

If you’re still on the fence, then answer this: Is running at an easy pace for 10 seconds bad for you?  Assuming you’re starting without injury, then no, 10 seconds of running shouldn’t be bad for you.  What about 60 seconds?  10 minutes?  Running requires conservative progress.  If you’re new, then start with a safe, comfortable pace and duration, and then slowly (after month’s time) build from there.  Remember… patience ‘runs supreme!

There is no universal rule when determining a healthy (versus unhealthy) duration and pace.  There are just too many variables to consider (e.g., exercise history, joint health, how well your knee hinges, tight muscles, weak muscles, etc.).  Talk to a running coach to establish your program, and then do it!

And now the research:

The Stanford University School of Medicine (http://www.healthnews.com/running-may-help-you-live-longer-and-healthier, 2008) studied 2 groups of people 50 and older, a group of runners and non-runners that were monitored for over two decades.  After 19 years, when most participants would have been in their 70’s, only 15% of the runners had passed while 34% of the non-runners had passed.  During the beginning of the study, the runners were averaging around four hours a week running and by the end of the study their time running decreased to only around a quarter of that time. Though their time spent running decreased drastically, researchers still saw benefits from running.

The study not only determined that exercise decreased disabilities as we grow older, but running also reduced deaths caused from cardiovascular problems. The study also found that regular running also decreased early deaths from cancer, heath disease, and even Alzheimer’s and other neurological diseases.

Another group (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18483739, 2008) studied the knee joints of recreational long-distance runners.  After 10 years, no adverse long-term consequences were observed regardless of pre-existing damage at the baseline investigation!  The researchers concluded that non-physiological maximal loads (e.g., running) other than marathon running do not cause any permanent damage in the internal structures of the knee joint.

In summary, running is a healthy activity, IF you approach it in a healthy way.  When in doubt, talk with your doctor first, and then your local running coach.

Train smart!

Are free weights better than machines?  Ask a group of

Dumbbells @ The DAC

muscle heads and I bet I know their answer.  But, the fact is, strength gains are the SAME (assuming the levels of intensity are equal with both modalities).  A 10-week study compared groups training three times per week with either free weights or machines.  All groups had significant increases in strength and lean body mass and a decrease in body fat.  There were no significant differences between the groups.

A muscle must experience an appropriate level of fatigue with a workload that is progressive from one workout to the next in order to increase in size

Machines @ The DAC

and strength.  Since muscles do not have a brain, or cognitive ability, they cannot possibly “know” the source of the workload.  So, it doesn’t matter whether the muscles are fatigued with a resistance that comes from a machine, a barbell, a cinder block, or a human being.  In short, there is no documented difference in relative strength gains using one form of resistance over another.  The sole factors in determining your response from strength training are your inherited characteristics and your level of intensity – not the equipment that is used.