Isn't recovery supposed to be relaxing?

Its the classic saying, that a real ahlete should be a "24-hour athlete". Its the awareness that everything one does throughout the day has an effect on future training or races. I think some people take this a tad too literally sometimes, to a level of obsession and paranoia. Granted, a certain level of this is probably what makes a great athlete really great, but for most of us mere mortals, we don't always have the apparati or facilities to do the ideal thing in every occasion. Which, coincidentally, brings us to the topic of this article:

Effect of immediate and delayed cold water immersion after a high intensity exercise session on subsequent run performance. Brophy-Williams, N, Landers, G. and Wallman, K. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine (2011) 10, pp.665-670.

I knew some skiers that lived and died by their ice baths. If they didn't get it, their races were ruined. If they didn't get it soon enough, also ruined. If they etc, etc,... ruined. But, this study is great, because it looks at how important it is to jump into that cold bath as soon as possible.

The study used 8 "well trained" athletes who performed a total of 6 trials, in 3 sets of two. They'd do one high intensity interval session, followed by one of three recover conditions, and then another trial 24 hours later, doing a "Yoyo Intermittent recovery test", which, after a quick googling, is very similar to a "beep test" or a "30-metre shuttle run", or "that test where you run back and forth based on a tape recording beep", or, "one of the most fun maximal tests you can do". Seriously, its a blast. In a masochistic sort of way.

The secret to a good result is the turn. I'm not even kidding. Master the turn, and you gain several levels. These guys fail.

Anyhow, the fundmental portion of the test was the recovery conditions. The first condition was an immediate cold water bath, submerging to mid-sternum in 15 degree Celsius water for 15 minutes. The second condition was cold water immersion 3 hours after the interval session. Third was that classic recovery condition, "quiet sitting" for 15 minutes.

Just in case you need more information on the subject.

Prior to follow-up test 24 hours later, the subjects did some subjective reporting first, on recovery perception and muscle soreness. They then performed the shuttle run, and the results were recorded.

Let's start with subjective measures. The authors actually found that there was no significant change in muscle soreness, but did see a significant effect on perception of recovery. Naturally, its hard to know exactly whether the athlete's felt better because of the physiological changes to their muscles, or just psychological knowledge of doing something that they  perceive is beneficial for recovery.

The performance measures, there was some real noticeable difference! In...a person's ability to run back and forth. Yes, this does not necessarily have earth shattering all-world applications. But, the number of shuttles complete for the quiet sitting, the immediate cold water immersion, and the three hour immersion was 32.4, 37.9, and 35.7, respectively. In all cases, the finishing blood lactate and heart rate levels were very, very similar. So, similar effort, different recovery protocol, noticable performance difference!

Now, to all us mere mortals that don't have instant access to a means for cold water immersion after a hard exercise, the most relevant result is is the impact of cold water immersion after 3 hours. And, good news! Its still useful. Its not quite as useful as immediate, but the results are significant enough (10% performance enhancement) to still consider doing it!

I make no promises it will improve brain performance.

The authors also point out the other studies that agree, to a certain extent, on their premise. One study showed that doing a swimming recovery session 10-hours after intense exercise improved performance in a time to fatigue run 24 hours later. 10 hours later, and making efforts to recover were still applicable!

The ultimate conclusion? The sooner the better, but better late the never!


So, how does this apply to orienteering?

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Orienteering race weekends really do take their toll on an athlete, probably more so than in many other sports. 3 races in three days, or even 2 days, at least one being as long as 90 minutes, requiring total focus, both mentally and physically. Its intensive stuff.

First, and most obvious, is that the specific recovery protocol in the study above, cold water immersion, still appears to have some effect quite some time after competition. So, you can still compete, warm-down, change, eat, chit-chat, drive home, winge about something on Attackpoint, and then an ice bath. Its still somewhat beneficial! If you want to perform at your best, but still have a real life, then a compromise is still possible.

Now, here's another thought, remember how the cold water immersion had a significant effect in the perception of recovery? I think this is also an important point. Like I said above, its hard to know whether they were sensing actual recovery, or just feeling like they must be recovered, because they actually did something to improve their recovery. Never underestimate the power of the placebo! There are so many claimed ways to improve recovery. To a certain extent, who cares if they don't necessarily work? An important aspect is your belief that it is effective. Wear compression? Elevate your legs? Have a nap? Self-massage? Cry? Shoot terrorists in Call of Duty 3?

On those weekends of multi-race days, everyone needs to develop some vices to make one feel as though they are recovering. Clearly, this study has shown that cold-water immersion appears to be one effective method. But, if you can't do that, you should find your own thing. A calming, relaxing situation that makes you feel recovered.

Which is ironic, because sitting in an ice cold bath is neither relaxing nor calming.

This video is also neither relaxing or calming, because its hilarious.

"To me, it look like a leprechaun to me."

Channel Your Inner Hoff

I think if I had somewhere that had sand, I'd sometimes run in it for training purposes. It feels like a good workout. Softer conditions, needing to use a bit extra energy for each step, wax up my six pack and pecs so all the ladies check me out. Dynamite. Unfortunately, where I live has neither beaches nor any ladies checking me out (I'm sensing a recurring theme here.....).

Well hello there.

Anyhow, the obviously, the reason I bring this up is that I happened upon an article while reading another article. (If you must know, the other article was on this topic: RunBlogger)

Effects of a Sand Running Surface on the Kinematics of Sprinting at Maximum Velocity by Alcaraz, P.E., Palao, J.M., Elvira, J.L.L., and Linthorne, N.P., Biology of Sport, Vol 28, No. 2, 95-100.

The authors wanted to look at what effect sprinting in sand had on a sprinter's form. They tested this by having sprinters sprint in the sand (stunning!). They ran two sessions, one on the track and one in the sand. After a specific warm-up, the did multiple sprints with complete rest in between. They were 30 metres sprints with a flying start, allowing 20 metres to hit speed. And, if you must know, the sand they tested on had an average diameter of about 0.25mm with a densite of about 1530 kg/m^3. Important stuff, people.

More importantly, the authors used high speed cameras to record and subsequently analyze the athlete's kinematics. The camera was placed about the 20 metre mark of the 30 metre sprint, perpendicular to the direction of running. They used elaborate biomechanical analysis software to create segments and landmarks on the body to blah blah blah science that's not really important. What is important is that the kinematic variables were centred around the instances of the runner's stride, the touchdown, mid-stance, take-off.  Touchdown is obvious, mid-stance is when the athlete's centre of mass is directly over the toe, and take-off is the first instance of the foot being no longer in contact with the ground.

Results
Unsurprisingly, the athletes were slower in the sand than on the track, by 15.8 percent in men and 12.4% in women. What was the cause of the slower times? It was determined that their stride frequency stayed the same, but their stride length was shorter. So, there is a simple first conclusion, soft surfaces slow us down because every stride is less effective than on firm surfaces. The soft surface dissipates more of the energy and increases the amount of time the runner is in contact with the ground. Not exactly a revelation.

What's more relevant, of course, is how running on softer surfaces affects a runner's biomechanics. There were significant changes in the joint angles of the trunk and lower limbs. Essentially, the runners tended to, as the authors called it " 'sit' during the ground contact phase, with a lower centre of mass and a greater forward lean in the trunk".

Fig. 2 from the article - Dashed line is on the track, solid line is on sand

With the hips set further back, the centre of mass is lowered, and their centre of balance is moved further back.  If you've ever seen the vertical path of an inefficient runner's centre of mass, you'll notice that it spends an exceeding amount of time going up and down while moving forward. A more efficient runner will see significantly less vertical motion in that centre of mass. The same applies here, the bio-mechanical change of running in sand means there is more vertical motion in the athlete's centre of mass. Realistically, this is wasted motion, since going up and down really doesn't make you move any faster horizontally.

As the authors note, "elite sprinters run in a more upright position than good sprinters", and generally the same applies to distance running. Its all about maximizing horizontal motion, and generally decreasing the amount of unwanted vertical motion. Ultimately, the authors concluded that there is potential for sprint training in sand to be detrimental to an elite sprinter's form, because they may make technique adaptations in the sand that are inefficient on the track. However, that conclusion is not overly relevant to us....

So, how does this apply to orienteering?


Actually, I think this is relevant for a lot of reasons. And as I thought of them, I didn't write them down, and no longer remember.

What's most relevant to orienteering is the impact on form while running in soft conditions. If orienteers were always on nice Mondo surfaces and turning left occasionally, this wouldn't be as relevant. However, softer conditions are par for the course. How often in the forest do you get to run on pristinely firm surfaces? Almost never. I think this raises two questions (at least) related to orienteering that are relevant to performance:

1) Should we train ourselves to maintain proper form through the softer conditions, OR should we train to be stronger when our form is weaker?

I guess ultimately it comes back to specificity. If those sprinters spent all their time sprinting the sand, eventually they wouldn't be great sprinters on the track, but they'd probably kill it in the sand. What would be useful in that study is to do it more long term: if those athletes continued to run in the sand, would they get strong enough to re-align their form to be more efficient again? Clearly, no elite athletes would be willing to stake their career on such an experiment.

Nevertheless, orienteers will be guaranteed to experience all forms of terrain, from rock hard to super soft. An orienteer should most certainly take a careful look at their own running form on firm conditions and make an effort to ensure their form is efficient as possible. The best way to prevent your form from breaking down in less-than-ideal conditions is to start with a really strong base.

Second, and this goes back to the anecdote I mentioned in an early post, on the importance of leg strength and strength endurance. The quote noted that the Swede made an effort to work on explosive leg strength because he was able to lengthen his stride. As we have learned about, stride length is the primary cause in the reduction of horizontal velocity. If you are able to get more force out of every toe-off, you are not only going further every stride, but you also have the ability to reduce your stride rate and potentially save some energy.

Third, and as always, the importance of core strength, and in this instance, hip strength. The forward lean of the trunk in the above figure can be reduced by improving the strength of the muscles in the back (like the erector spinae), or the gluteus maximus. Likewise, those always stubborn hip flexors play a vital role in being able to pick up ones foot, drive the leg through, keep that butt from sitting backwards, and ultimately keep the centre of gravity from moving backwards and downwards.

Really, really ridiculously good looking. Running.

In short, the answer to my initial question, is the former. One focus on having very good form, and then emphasize have the strength to maintain close to ideal form in softer conditions as well. The best way to do that? think about maintaining good form while running in softer conditions. Feel the differences in your stride. Note where you feel your weight has shifted, where angled feel different. Video yourself doing it. Compare them. No one is a bad runner, but we can all become better runners.

2) Just how important is picking a good running surface during a race?

All orienteers will run a path if there is a path to take, that is a given. But how often do you think about where you're running while on the path? What about urban sprint? If you're running a long straight away and have the choice between surfaces? Do you think about it then?

As this article has shown there could be as much as a 15% performance difference in your choice of condition to run on. Granted, that's going from almost ideal, to almost worse, but there is a decisive difference.

Choose a route from 12-13, one is shorter, but which one might be faster?

At the sprint camp in Vancouver, I was able to watch many runners try to sprint on the grass, when if they'd take 3-4 steps to their side, they'd run the entire leg on pavement instead. The same can said in the forest, there have been occasions where I'd rather be in the forest than on a trail simply because the trail was sandy, or muddy, whereas the forest floor was much better.

So, there you go. I must admit, I seem to be reverting back to the same main points, maintenance of form through a strong core is essential to everything. I will make an effort of diversifying. You are also welcome to come up with your own conclusion. Your are undoubtably smarter than I.

There is also one more place where its good maintain good sprinting form. Just in case you need to run away, or maybe I'll find a real job and start doing this:

Insert stretching pun here.

I had a particular topic in mind for this post. But then I got distracted flipping through the recent articles of one journal, and stopped at one that I thought looked particularly interesting. Its something that we've all, to a certain extent, learned to do, but is anyone really sure why we do it? Is it at all useful? Are we doing it correctly? Well, don't ask me, because I don't know.

Probably more flexible than necessary.

But, with luck, this journal article will shed a little bit of light on the benefits or hazards of... stretching. Specifically, dynamic stretching. Dynamic stretching is that thing that many athletes are doing when they're waving their appendages around in various directions. It could be hockey players twisting their torsos while trying to look suave for the ladies in the crowd, or soccer players doing those leg lifts while trying to look suave for the ladies in the crowd. I look to do leg swings before the start, and I look neither suave, nor are there ladies in the crowd.

Still, why do we do that? Well, I have my own theory (which will come up later), but this recent study looks at one potential benefit for runners.

Effects of Dynamic Stretching on Energy Cost and Running Endurance Performace in Trained Male Runners by Zourdos, Michael ; Wilson, Jacob; Sommer, Brian; Lee, Sang-Rok; Park, Young-Min; Henning, Paul; Panton, Lynn; Kim, Jeong-Su, Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: February 2012 - Volume 26 - Issue 2


As the author's state right at the very beginning, there is plenty o' debate on the benefits of stretching as part of a warm-up, and further, the benefits of static and dynamic stretching. This article focuses primarily on dynamic stretching, and specifically on running endurance. Apparently, some studies tested the benefit of dynamic stretching on other types of performance, some studies found it "demonstrated no changes in isometric peak torque and 1-rep max bench & leg press", but other studies have found an increase in "leg extension power and 20-m sprint performance". Those are all explosive power activities. But, would a dynamic stretching routine improve endurance performance when included in a warm-up?

The authors took 14 trained runners, and had them do 3 lab tests. The first was a standard vo2 max test. The second and third tests varied by whether they did a dynamic stretching routine as a part of a warm-up routine (the other part was walking slowly for 5 minutes), or just sat quietly after walking for 5 minutes. They had the subjects perform a sit-and-reach test before and after the warm-ups. They then ran for 30 minutes at 65% of their vo2max, and then did a 30 minute performance run, where the subjects set their own speed and tried to run as far as they could.

Here's the complex part, what was their dynamic stretching routine? It was 15 minutes long, and had several exercises I don't even know. They were: Toe and heel walking, a hip flexion/extension exercise, Hand walks (pushup position and walking hands up to standing), rear lunges, lateral lunges, forward lunges, knee pull to lunge, ankle pull to lunge, walking groiners, and Frankensteins.

If I may be so bold to say, right off the bat, that this looked like a pretty exhausting warm-up routine. Particularly the lunges. I don't want to roll up to the start line already sore.

So, results. For the sit-and-reach test, the values increased significantly with dynamic exercises, where as they didn't change at all after quiet sitting. One might be able to make the argument that any amount of warm-up would influence a sit and reach test over quiet sitting, but, there it is.

In terms of endurance, the big result was..... that there wasn't much of a result. The average distance running between the control condition and the stretching condition was virtually the same. Fundamentally, the authors of this study found that "there was no difference in endurance performance between the dynamic stretching and control conditions". Bummer. However, the authors are quick to salvage this study, pointing out that dynamic stretching did not adversely effect endurance performance either. Technically true, but uninspiring.

The one area it did have an impact was in baseline Vo2 and caloric expenditure during the sub-maximal 30 minutes of running. Unfortunately I'm not entirely certain what impact increasing caloric expenditure at a sub-maximal level would have on performance. I would almost envision if one did this dynamic stretching routine followed by a light warm-up (as one might traditionally do for a running race), they'd expend more energy than necessary before the race even started. As the authors state: "a warm-up of too high an intensity can cause the accumulation of metabolites, negatively affect O2 deficit, deplete glycogen stores, and increase thermoregulatory strain and as a result may not be beneficial for longterm performance ". Additionally, an increase of baseline vo2 could probably equally be increased by just doing a light job warm-up.

Too much dynamic stretching?

Damn. See? I'm even going off on a tangent. What I just said might give off the impression that a warm-up shouldn't be marginally fatiguing. Really, raising your body temperature, your baseline vo2 max, and just generally preparing your body to perform is very important! Its really tough to stay on topic here. So, let's move on to the real question:

So, how would this help my orienteering?


I left off a discussion of one of the results of this study until now, because I think its the most relevant for orienteers. I'll let you read their paragraph in all its glory:

"Our previous study (23) demonstrated a 17% increase in the sit-and-reach performance after a 16-minute static stretching protocol, which was similar to the 16% increase seen after our dynamic stretching protocol. Although static stretching resulted in a decrease in running performance, our study showed no significant differences in performance with dynamic stretching, despite similar changes in the range of motion (ROM). This finding suggests that dynamic stretching acutely increases joint ROM to the same extent as static stretching does but without deleterious effects on performance."

A previous study established that static stretching decreased running performance and that dynamic stretching did not, and both studies significantly improved range of motion.

Range of motion, in addition to balance and core strength, are more important to orienteers than to other runners. We need the strength and the added flexibility to adapt and compensate to variation in terrain. Whereas the biggest obstacle 800m runners need to face is the occasional left turn, orienteers need to be able to cross terrain that might involve changes in stride length, unstable terrain, steep climbs and descents, holes, slippery terrain, all that crazy stuff. You know what I'm talking about. No two steps are the same. And whereas track runners may be a little bit less flexible (which may improve elasticity of the muscles, another discussion for another day), we need that extra range of motion to be able to handle the physical demands and prevent injury. AND, not just in our feet. Our ankles and knees to adapt to side to side impacts, our quads and hips for sudden changes in descending and ascending, and our torso and entire upper body to maintain our stability and balance.

Gotta run through this at high speed WITHOUT rupturing all the tendons in your legs.

So, in summary, if you're an orienteer, you should do some dynamic stretches as part of your pre-event warm-up. Its not hard to find sources of information to create a repertoire of exercises. You can easily google dynamic stretches and find a ton of them. Be discriminating, though, don't listen to the random girl from some gym somewhere, find some reputable ones with better sources. Here is a good one, for instance,

http://www.runnerspace.com/video.php?video_id=52873-Core-Routine-Monday-Part-1-Walking-Knee-Pull-Nike-Elite-Camp-2011

Speaking for core, since I'm on the topic. Do some. Do lots.

Search "core coutine" on Runnerspace.com


I didn't watch any entertaining videos, but these guys are coming to town in April, anyone want to go?

There's no crying in orienteering!

I'm not going to lie. I'm neither smart nor creative enough to be able to just about any article and make it interesting or relevant to orienteering. I'm sure its do-able, but.... not by me. So, my article I just read about implicit skill learning by experts in netball? Well, it'll have to wait while I give it more thought. If you have any suggestions on what sort of orienteering skills could be developed using implicit learning (particularly for the high-performance audience), then I'm all ears.

For now, I'm going with an easy one. Specificity.

"Comparison of base running in baseball players and track-and-field athletes", Kazuyoshi Miyaguchi, Shinich Demura, Kazuya Nagai, Yu Uchida, Health, Issue 3, 2011

Sometimes, scholarly articles may be... "scholarly" but not exactly mind-blowing. This is one of those articles. But, I think it just illustrates an important point that sometimes is forgotten by many mid-level athletes. The study compared sprint ability of baseball players and track athletes, specifically sprinters, jumpers, and some decathlon guys. Essentially, track athletes who tend to run in straight lines only. The subjects were tested running the bases from home plate to second, and rounding the bases. These are equivalent to straight line distances of 54.8 metres, and 109.6 metres. Running those distances in a straight line were also tested, so that there was data for both sets of subjects while running the bases and running in a straight line. Aside from the time it took to run the distance, they also measured running distance around the bases, to identify differences in efficiency.

I don't think anyone would find the results all that surprising. The track athletes were generally faster over the straight line distance, being almost a second faster over the 109.6m sprint. However, the baseball players were just slightly faster while rounding the bases. The average change of speed between straight and base running was higher in the track & field athletes, meaning that their performance suffered greater from having to turn. Further, the baseball players cumulatively ran a shorter distance while rounding the bases, meaning they were more efficient with their turning technique, being able to run a tighter line through the corners.

Here's a simple summary from the authors: "It is inferred that the T&F athletes cannot exert sprint ability with poorly-trained base running skills whereas baseball players go through a base smoothly and can maintain maximum speed".

So, how can we translate this to orienteering?

As I said in the introduction, this post is about specificity. The baseball study showed us that if you want to be good at base running, you can't just be a fast sprinter. You have to be good at running bases. If we want to make a direct relation to orienteering, you could compare smooth-ness of base running to smooth-ness of orienteering. The fastest guy doesn't always win, the guy with the best flow will win. But, we all know that one.

Orienteering is a running sport that requires more than just running fitness, it also requires a lot of running skills. If you look at what your weaknesses are while orienteering, the most obvious thing to do is to do those things, a lot. I encounter this a lot when talking to people about the Canadian Death Race. They went out and tried to do it solo, while training around town for all summer. Then they get to the mountains and realize that their knees have been absolutely shattered because they just spent an hour and a half descending. There are no 90 minute downhills on the prairies. The only way to train yourself to handle that physical stress is to do it. A lot. Similarly, from what I understand, one of the reasons many European orienteers are so fast through the woods is that that's what they grew up doing. Orienteering or otherwise, they've had the opportunity to do a lot of, and implicitly or explicitly have become skilled at running efficiently through that kind of terrain. They too, might be able to outrun track and field athletes in their chosen field.

Which brings me to my favorite rant about North American orienteers. Many of us (myself excluded) do a pretty good job of coming up with some good technical training to practice their navigation skills. But we all need to run way, way more. We need to run longer, run faster, be more efficient in rough terrain, climb hills faster, and etc. I look at this sport as a running sport with navigation, not the other way around. And again, with the specificity, it doesn't count if its cycling to work, or playing indoor soccer, or jogging around hanging controls. Being a good runner means focusing on running.

For orienteers, this can also include learning to run in less than ideal circumstances. Try doing intervals straight through the woods, find some reasonably technical downhills to go overspeed on. Do sidehill intervals (if you're a masochist). Or alternatively, isolate muscle performance that impact those skills. Balance or agility, for instance. A guy I know who is a professor of exercise physiology actually quoted a Swedish orienteer (I can't remember which one), who said that he likes to do explosive stength exercises in the gym, because the explosive power enables him to lengthen the distance he gets with each stride, allowing him to run just that little bit faster or reducing his fatigue in softer terrain.

But, I'm getting off track a little. Point being, this simple base running study shows that specific physical skills are improved through training those specific skills. You can be an awesome runner, but if I can't turn, you'll get beaten by an okay runner with great turning skills. Likewise, orienteering is a skill running sport, and its great if you're fit and can run, but you need to be able to run with skill. And that simply requires practice. Repetition. Specificity.

Getting jacked up on the caff

And.... we're back! There was a forced brief hiatus there, my log-in for university library access ran out, so I had to find another. And then I did. And all was well.
--------------------------------------
I've always thought it odd that in orienteering, a typically race weekend or multi-day event involves something grueling every day, if not twice a day. If this were skiing, few skiers would think its a good idea to race twice the day before doing a race that was expected to take 90 minutes the next morning - think a middle + sprint on Saturday and long on Sunday. That's like skiing a 15k, followed by a 5k, followed by a 30k the next morning. In the days before "mini-tours" were en vogue en skiing, I bet half the field would blow off at least one or both of the Saturday races to do the Sunday race or vice versa.

Yet, most orienteers would feel cheated if they didn't get to race that much in one weekend. And don't get me started on training! Every session seems to be blasting at top speed. So, since orienteers don't seem to be quick on change (as I think the state of fashion in our sport attests), I'm going to have to deal with this unusually high demand of racing in short periods of time. And it might be best if I learn some things about how to handle it just a bit better, with this study:

"The Effect of Adding Caffeine to Postexercise Carbohydrate Feeding on Subsequent High-Intensity Interval-Running Capacity Compared With Carbohydrate Alone" by Conor Taylor, Daniel Higham, Graeme L. Close, and James P. Morton, International Journal of Sport Nutition and Exercise Metabolism, 2011, 21, pp. 410-416. 


If I remember rightly from my phys ed degree, the idea behind ingesting caffeine pre-race is that it speeds the metabolism of fats. Fat, as opposed to carbohydrate, metabolizes slower, but provides more energy. So, if you  can burn fat faster, you'll get more energy gradually over a longer period of time, and probably get a sweet six-pack (okay, two out of three).

This study, however, looked at adding caffeine to one's post exercise re-fueling, in particular, after a high-intensity running session, and its effect on running capacity on another high-intensity session four hours later. The participants did the test protocol three seperate times, once consuming a liquid with just carbohydrate, once with carbs and caffeine, and once with flavoured water (Volvic, not tasty). They would do one test to volitional vatigue, then rest for four hours, consuming the drink four times during that period, at 5, 60, 120, and 180 minutes after. Then they did an exercise capactity test, the beep test, which, if you've never done, is a ton of fun. Seriously, a blast.

They measured several things, though I'd say only two measures had significant differences, as shown in this graph:

Charts make everything look more science-y.

The most important result is that there was clearly improved performance when consuming carbohydrates and caffeine against just carbs and just water. Like, the differences were huge. An average of 32 minutes to exhaustion versus 48? That's a 50% gain in exercise capacity. Clearly consuming some caffeine had an effect on exercise capacity. In the discussion, the authors refer to another study they say agrees with their findings with some more data: "Pedersen et al. used a feeding protocol similar to that adopted here ... At the end of the 4-hr recovery period, total glycogen resynthesis was therefore 80 mmol/kg greater in the CHO+CAF trial than in the CHO-only condition." Essentially, the body created more fuel during the recovery period with some caffeine.

The authors go into several other theories that could explain how, physiologically, caffeine impacts the body to cause this increase, which I won't go into here. I highly encourage anyone to read this paper for that discussion (its pretty brief, but interesting).

The other notable result related to the ingestion of caffeine was the rate of gastrointestinal discomfort, which,  does not paint a pretty picture for caffeine, or carbs, for that matter. As the chart showed, the discomfort was significantly higher as the test went on. This should be a huge red flag to those people who have sensitive stomach.

So, how can we apply this to orienteering?


Firstly, remember that this measure exercise capacity. So, if you're sprinting in the afternoon after a middle in the morning, it may not make you any faster. However, it could potentially make you slow down less. Or, it could make you feel less fatigued from the morning's effort as those last 5-10 minutes of the sprint wears on. This could stave off the feeling of being really stupid near the end of the race, something I think we've all experienced at some time.

I would also think that if you have a longer event in the afternoon, perhaps a relay, or even a middle or a chasing start, it could have a significant impact there. Simply being able to better recover from the morning's effort and sustain a level of effort for longer.

It would also apply to the training camp scenario. Given they seem to be 5-6 sessions in a day, consuming some caffeine after the first workout could very well make those afternoon workouts more productive.

Caffeine or not, though, its clear that even just consuming some carbs post-workout is very important.

How much caffeine????
Okay, sorry, this probably got you all excited. Huge exercise capacity gains? How can I lose? Well, in this study, the subjects consumed 8mg/kg body mass. For me, that'll mean 680mg of caffeine, which, quite frankly, is INSANE.

As a point of reference, a red bull has 320 mg per litre of caffeine. I'd have to drink over two litres of redbull. Alternatively, I could drink around 7 litres of Coke, take 7 caffeine tablets, consume 20 Gu Roctanes, eat 65 Hershey's chocolate bars, or have a third of a litre of espresso.

I don't understand why my map won't come into focus.

So, the gains found in this study are highly unfeasible. But, scale it down, and you may see some gains. Its always worth experimenting with during training. Don't try it for the first time before a race! Remember the gastrointestinal discomfort data? Don't be that guy throwing up all over the SI box at control three.

I hate to leave on such a non-cheery note, though, so watch this instead. I can promise you that I have heard almost all of these at one point:

Stuff that didn't quite make it big

In an effort to stall for time while I look for another interesting article, here's a fun side diversion.

I work (sometimes) in an intellectual property law office, so I've skimmed over thousands upon thousands of patents. Every now and then I come across some really, really weird ones. As I run across them, I'll add them here as well. Often these inventions have a foundation in science, for better of for worse.

This is from US Patent 4626247. Here's the problem, (directly quoted):

"Vigorous exercise is known to produce sweat or perspiration from various parts of the body. When the exercise, such as running, is prolonged, a considerable amount of sweat is produced. It is known that prolonged sweating, such as in cross-country or marathon running, results in the depletion of salt and water from the body. It is advisable to take electrolyte replacement solutions to compensate for this depletion."

That IS a conundrum. What is the novel solution to this problem?

"In accordance with the present invention, a headband has been designed which is capable of collecting sweat from a runner's forehead and if desired, also from the runner's face and optionally feeding such sweat down a tube or groove to a mouthpiece through which the collected sweat may be returned to the body. This is particularly suitable for long distance or marathon runners to avoid the weakness which often results from the depletion of salt and water from the body because of sweating for a prolonged period. If so desired, the sweat may be allowed to run off away from the runner's face without being returned to the runner's mouth. The headband advantageously has one or more grooves facing upward and preferably toward the head so that as the sweat is stopped from running down the forehead by the snug fit of the headband against the forehead, the sweat will spill over into and collect in the groove. The groove may lead to a tube or groove slanted downward to a mouthpiece which the runner holds in his mouth. This mouthpiece has an opening through which the collected sweat is fed into the mouth. "

TL:DR? In summary: Sweatband collects sweat, and funnels it back into your mouth.

Aside from being gross, I did a little exploring to see if this has any merit, or if drinking sweat is more or less effective than a sport drink. Thanks to the amazing guys at the science of sport, I think there is a solution. I'll post the source below after I go through the findings.

They state that the average sodium concentration in a fit person is 20mM. Other people may be more concentrated, some may be less. Meanwhile, Gatorade, in their example, has a sodium concentration of only 18mM. So, if you were to drink the same quantity of sweat as gatorade, technically you would in fact get more electrolytes by drinking your sweat than sport drink. In fact, the authors of the blog also discuss one commonly held view, that one should drink the same amount of fluid as is lost (say, drinking 1L of gatorade to each 1L of fluid loss). But, this runs the risk of becoming hyponatraemic (having excessively low sodium levels). Essentially you're drinking so much liquid its diluting the electrolytes in your system.

Thing is, I imagine that the quantity of sweat you could collect from your sweat is too low to be an effective replenisher, since we sweat an awful lot from other places as well. So, while the aforementioned patent might be useful in theory, it seems fairly problematic in execution. And still, also pretty unpleasant.


How does this apply to orienteering?

Thankfully, we're not all going to start wearing sweat funnels. I think that given how we have less opportunity to drink than other sports, though, electrolyte supplementation might still be worth it. Should you take it in a specific sport drink (aside from a pill, for instance) though? Depends if you're a thirsty person. At the conclusion of the blog, the Science of Sports guys discuss a study from well back that determined that ingestion of gatorade contributed to the highest rise in sodium concentration. The higher sodium concentration made the subjects thirstier, because "you never lower your osmolality below the thirst threshold and therefore are thirstier when ingesting a sports drink, whereas with water you maintain the osmolality right around the thirst threshold and drink and abstain as your thirst comes and goes". It seems like the important thing is determining what level of electrolyte replenishment works for you. That, like most nutritional supplements, requires some experimentation. Determining what prevents negative consequences of low electrolytes (like cramping), versus bringing on feelings of excessive thirst (among other things). Ultimately, you have to let your body be your guide.


Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing when in most races the water stations will come. Then you kind of need to plan on the fly, based on where the water stations are, the environment, how you're feeling, and how long you'll take to the next one. You don't want to just chug, but if the next one is probably 20 minutes away, a quick sip is all you need. If you have to traverse the map a couple of times and its +35. A deliberate stop to drink rather than pour it all over yourself is in order. 

When I ski raced more competitively, the coaches were often surprised why if there were more than one feed station on a course, I wanted water in one of them. I felt like it rinsed my mouth out a bit, and satisfied thirst a little bit better than coke or sport drink. Turns out, I was clearly brilliant.

Here is the link to the blog: The Science of Sport . Its good stuff, these guys are very, very good.

Well, that turned out to be pretty dang interesting. Here's something slightly less intellectually stimulating:

Last week's closing video of the Doctor Who theme (admit it, you listened to it and loved it, right?), got me thinking a bit more about music. I like some pre-race tuneage, basically whatever I'm liking at the time. Often some Muse, maybe some White Panda, recently I've gone back and found some music from some classic Rally driving games I used to play that rock. Perhaps there's a way I can enhance my performance with my music, not just from a 'pass the time' standpoint, but from an actual psychosomatic perspective.

So, as I was toodling around on the internet for recent articles, I found this one:

Effects of synchronous music on treadmill running among elite triathletes

Peter C. Terrya, Costas I. Karageorghisb, Alessandra Mecozzi Sahaa, Shaun D’Auriac, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Volume 15, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 52–57

I'm sure many of us having listened to music while running. I've also noticed how some songs feel like they have a slower or faster tempo depending on the speed I'm running at. It apparently has been well established that music, has an impact on endurance, perceived exercise, 'exercise-induced feeling states', among other things. The authors of this study felt that one thing was missing was researching the impact on more elite runners, since many of the other studies just used walking.

The subjects in this study ran a progressive test to exhaustion, lasting about 20 minutes. They did it three times, once with "motivational music", once with "neutral music" and no music. Neutral music was identified using some music inventory, which I presume just means music that really doesn't have an effect on a person, positive or negative (its called the Brunel Music Rating Inventory-2, if you really want to know). The other important aspect of the music was that it was synchronous; that the tempo of the track matched up to the subject's stride rate. During the test, the authors measured a variety of physiological data, as well as self-reported mood states from pre- to post- testing.

In the end, the study seemed to find mixed physiological results. Each of the three music conditions occasionally had the optimal effect. Time to exhaustion was significantly higher with music than not, but average VO2 and running economy was higher without music than with, though the difference was not much more than 2% (which, since it kind of contradicts the authors hypothesis, they somewhat brush off!).

Awww yeah, let's get ready to race.

The mood state data, though, is more intriguing. The subjects showed an increase in depression, anger, fatigue, and confusion, and a decrease in tension and vigour, all of which could reasonably be expected. In almost all of these cases, the tests that involved music had a positive effect on these post-test mood states. All of the negative moods states were lessened with music, all of the positive mood states were impacted less by the exercise. In particular, motivational music had the greatest positive effect, often at least twice as much impact as neutral music.

Clearly, with music, and particularly motivational music, athletes during exercise are driven to go a little bit longer and harder, and feel better about themselves and their workout afterwards. The lack of really solid physiological data suggest that the impact of music is more psychological than physical.

So, what could this mean for orienteers?

Clearly, it is entirely impractical to run with headphones. It would likely distract to much of one's attention away from navigating and more to announcing that "you otha brothas can't deny".

This has nothing to do with the topic, but was the first image that came up when I searched "Orienteering headphones"

I had also hoped that the fact that the music was synchronous would have some sort of positive impact on running efficiency. My thinking was that perhaps by listening to some up-tempo music that matched your ideal racing turnover, you could better prepare for the race by accurately simulating your racing form. Unfortunately, that wasn't really discussed in this study. Perhaps an experiment is in order?

I think, though, it does suggest that at least, pre-race, some motivational music might help. And not just while sitting around waiting to start, but, during warm-up, or listening to a quick tune within the last 10 minutes. The impact it had on reducing tension, depression, anger, fatigue, and confusion, while increase vigour was pretty resounding. Yes, the results in the study were found while listening to music throughout the entire test, so the effect may be significantly diminished. But its worth exploring. If you find you're a nervous wreck at the start and it impacts your first or second control, this could be a helpful strategy.

However, I know, for me, that the proximity of the music to my start can often lead to that last particular song being stuck in my head for the entire race. So, it would seem prudent that one should also have some re-focus techniques at the ready to switch from "improve mood state mode" to "race mode", where now the focus is on proper navigation. The triathletes in this study had the advantage of having little to think about aside from putting one foot in front of the other.

Ultimately, in a race situation it comes down to what you think works best. But, this study shows that its worth some experimentation. Perhaps try listening to different types of music at different times before the race. Maybe 2 hours, maybe 5 minutes. Maybe high-tempo motivational music, maybe Leonard Cohen. Maybe something that makes you laugh, or listen to some Canadian comedy... *zing!*

Find some music that is both motivating, and matches your gait cycle. That should be easy enough to figure out, surely the internet likely would tell you the tempo of any song, and a few workouts where you count your steps or use a pedometer would give an idea of what your natural turnover is at different speeds. Heck, this could be interesting. When spring rolls around, I'm going to try it! If someone else does, let me know what your scientifically tested running song is.

"Deadmau5, now tested by science!"

And since I brought it up, here's some rally music. Ah... early 2000's electronic music.

I like sport psychology. Its like secret, legal, performance enhancement. After last week's article about anxiety, I decided I'd delve a bit more into some psych stuff, and after flipping through the most reason edition of the Journal of Sport Psychology, I came across this one:

"Effects of Self-Talk: A Systematic Review" - David Tod, James Hardy, and Emily Oliver, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth; Bangor University, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 2011, 33, 666-687.

First, it would probably be helpful to clarify what self-talk is. Quite simply, its your inner monologue. What is you brain tell you right now? Perhaps while you're reading this, you've already thought to yourself "I wonder what happened since I last checked facebook 5 minutes ago". Can you deliberately tell yourself something (either in your head or with your voice), and have an impact on your behaviour? The conventional notion is that self-talk has a major impact on all aspects of a person's life, and has a major impact in sport. I re-read through my sport psych notes from university, and one slide says this:

"Positive self-talk can enhance self-esteem, motivation, attentional focus, and performance ... can help you stay in the moment"

"Negative self-talk is a potential internal distraction ... is critical and self-demeaning, and it interferes with a person's goals"

When I took the applied sport psych course, I did my term paper on John McEnroe, and how his extremely negative self-talk (he was a maladaptive perfectionist), was what caused his game to turn terrible and result in his crazy outbursts of anger (youtube him, entertainment gold!). I proposed various strategies of self-talk, like "thought stopping", to manage his negative self-talk to prevent his plummeting performance.

"YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!"

So, easy. Self-talk = an important part of performance. Easy. But, thanks to science, there's also many, many dimensions, types, strategies, concepts within self-talk. And that's where a nice literature review comes in. Like this one. Has self-talk really been found to massively impact performance? Are there types that have more impact than others?The answer to almost everything is, "well, kinda".

To be brief, the authors found that 75% of their studies showed that positive self-talk had some sort of positive effect on performance levels. The trouble is, there are so many aspects to self-talk, that the authors note that its efficacy is pretty situational. What task are you performing? What type of athlete are you? What type of self-talk are you employing? Is it REALLY the self-talk that having the influence?

One way to organize them was into two types of self-talk. "Instructional self-talk", and "motivational self-talk". They both had differing impact depending on the task. Instructional self-talk had a more common positive effect in precision-based tasks (ones that require technical execution of a physical task). So.... "keep your knees bent to be ready to pass if the serve comes to me". Motivational self-talk was more positive with condition-based tasks (ones that are physical outputs of a task), as in "YOU CAN DO THIS RUN FASTERRRRRR!"

One interesting thing to note, is that of the few studies that looked at the impact of negative self-talk on performance, none of them found it had any impact on performance. This is important, because my John McEnroe case above suggests that's not entirely true. Surely his thoughts of "I'm such a jerk, I can't believe I messed up that shot", contributed to his consistent unraveling. One cannot argue against anecdotal evidence. Scientifically, it sounds like you can call yourself a jerk, and it won't impact your performance. But does that feel like the case? You can decide for yourself on that one.

If you're racing and your facial expression is that, perhaps its time for some positive self-talk?

So, how does this apply to orienteering?

I don't really know what goes on in your head during a race. I can barely remember what goes on in my head during a race. If you ask me what I was thinking when I started going in the wrong direction in the WOC final, I have no idea. But, it seems like it would be useful to have a plan if that happens again. Unfortunately, this study tends to focus more on the execution of a phsyical skill, and orienteering is kind of a mish-mash of everything.

But, let's try and get some orienteering specific conclusions out of this. The authors note that, "the existing evidence base does suggest that self-talk has beneficial effects on cognition (in particular, concentration and focus-related variables), cognitive anxiety, and technical execution of movement skills.... verbal cuses could be used to increase focus as well as direct and redirect performer's attention". I think this is a solid support for the notion of reminding oneself of important tasks during the race. Things like "Focus on my bearings!", "Attack the control", "Simplify simplify simplify", are all reminders of re-focusing your attention on the important tasks instead of un-important ones ("There's a rock in my shoe!").

Another useful point, the authors suggest that skill level has is a big variable in the efficacy of self-talk, where it may be particularly more relevant for beginners. That goes along with the idea of talking oneself through the movements. I wonder if self-talk's useful-ness might also increase in times of extreme lost-ed-ness for all orienteers. Times when you need to back-up, goes WAY back to basics, and talk yourself through the mess you've gotten into.

One last thing, remember last entry's discussion on anxiety. Well, its back! "The beneficial effect of self-talk on cognitive anxiety is consistent with theoretical assertions that self-talk lies at the core of anxiety and findings that reducing negative or anxious self-talk results in less anxious states". Perhaps we have found some ways to decrease our anxiety. Self-talk --> Lowered anxiety --> Higher running economy --> Better navigation? Hm....

In closing, I'll admit this didn't provide any specific self-talk things you could do while orienteering. Its an overview of the efficacy of self-talk, and perhaps something you might want to explore. So, here's something I like to do, whenever I made a mistake and had a bad leg, I'd punch the control, tell myself to "Brush that off, and move on", and literally physically brush off my shoulder. I do it enough times that now just the action of brushing off my should associates it with the thought, and I can effectively put it behind me and move on.

And if that wasn't helpful, here's the 11th Doctor's Theme, it always gets me jacked up:

Welcome to my new blog! Some time ago, I decided I should try to make an effort to learn more things. Its started off by reading a random Wikipedia article every day. I rapidly tired of reading about '80s bands no one had ever heard of. Then I started reading journal articles I found. I have a Bachelor's degree in Physical Education, I'd prefer it to not go to waste. Then I thought, how can I apply this in a practical way to my sport?

And thus, this blog.

This may shock you, very few scholarly journal articles are about orienteering. I think, though, with a little creativity, we can all learn something from these poorly compensated phD students' hard work. So, let's give it a shot, and see how it goes!

Oh, also, proof-reading is not really my style. Just so you know.

----------------------

"Effects of anxiety on running with and without an aiming task" by Nicky Nibbeling, Hein A. M. Daanen, Rens M. Gerritsma, Rianne M. Hofland & Raôul R. D. Oudejans, Journal of Sports Sciences, Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2012 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640414.2011.617386

Ever tried to do any physical activity on the edge of a cliff? Find your heart rate to be just a tad elevated? What else did you notice? This study of anxiety while running looked at variety of different physiological parameters while in a low and a high anxiety condition. In this case, the high anxiety was created by having participants run a treadmill elevated 4.2 metres off the ground, with no guard rails.

Oh yeah, also, they were throwing darts.

Obviously, it was found that most of the parameters measured adjusted in a negative way, performance wise, during the high anxiety state. These included: "Rating Scale of Perceived Mental Effort", Oxygen update, heart rate, stride frequency, stride length and contact time (time between heel contact and toe-off). Their body worked a little harder, and they took more, shorter steps, with increased contact time. In short, they became less efficient runners. The dart throwing? Naturally, as the anxiety rose, the became less accurate with the darts. Big shocker there, but relevant to the overall discussion, I think.

In addition, they also surveyed the participants on statements of attentional focus during running in both the conditions. In the high anxiety statement, they tended to focus more on movement execution, 'worries and distracting thoughts', and less on task-relevant & irrelevant external stimuli, and positive monitoring.

What sort of anxiety is being experienced here? (photo by Adrian Zissos)

What can orienteers learn from this?

Actually, lots of things come to mind, and they're all somewhat interrelated.

Firstly, I think we can clearly conclude that confidence in one's forest running is very important. The authors note "anxiety may have pushed runners out of their preferred mode into less efficient running. In this process, movements may have become more rigid". When you're bombing down a hill in the rain, what is going through your mind? "Man I really don't want to crack open my skull"? Or, "Just stay loose and roll through the terrain". I think in our sport's case, not only will carrying a lot of anxiety slow you down, you're more likely to hurt yourself, since you're not ready to adapt to the terrain. It'll make you tired faster (due to lowered efficiency), and will probably make you MORE susceptible to injury. It sounds like a slippery slope to me. The authors say it best, that "the changes we found in running economy were related to the changes in attention, from the task-relevant external matters to threat-related internal worries."

Second, though dart-throwing is not the same type of intellectual task of navigation, I can see similarities in the precision nature of the task to something like... a compass bearing! The authors conclude their paper by saying that "when tasks that rely on the aerobic system and aiming tasks are combined an accumulated effect occurs, implying that running, aiming, and anxiety all compete for attention." I wonder, would there also be reduced accuracy if you were trying to run on a bearing, and doing nothing but worrying about whether you were still on that bearing? If, at some point, all you can do is go on a bearing, is it better to perpetually make small adjustments to your bearing, or stick closer to your original bearing, while picking out occasional features (the task-relevant external matter) to confirm your direction? Could excessive directional worying fatigue you faster?

Third, one thing I thought was interesting, was that external task-irrelevant focus actually went down with higher anxiety. The irrelevant stimuli included things like "noises in the background". I suppose I could take this to suggest that are certain amount of anxiety is useful. Let's called it "vigilance". I've always found that one of most common times I make a mistake is when I think "This is going really well!" A certain amount of anxiety, at least in orienteering, means that you never are letting yourself change your attention to something unimportant, because that's when we can easily miss something really important!

Take home message (the useful part if you didn't feel like reading the whole thing)
Clearly anxiety impacts a person's running ability and task ability. Running is not as automatic as we might think, and you will make yourself slower by being anxious about things.

In the future, perhaps our training should not just include improving the good things, but having means of dealing with the bad. What causes your anxiety? What can you do about it?

Me, I could be a better descender, lighter on my feet. So doing some overspeed training, working on my leg stability, and just blasting some downhill should raise my confidence and reduce the fear of smashing my face. And I like my face. It has some of my most.... functional... features.

Can you relate to this in some way? Do you notice a decrease in running economy when anxious about your navigation?