Why would an average marathon runner such as Claire Squires take drugs to...

81 to 100 of 186 messages
cougie    pirate
30/01/2013 at 21:53
I'll wait and see what the story is. I doubt it will be a "running is bad for you" story - as the evidence isn't there. 30000+ runners finished that day. Sadly one didn't and this supplement might be at least partly to blame.

The only thing I know about drugs is from sharing the sauna with some muscle bound men at the gym one Saturday. They were talking about a pal of theirs who had suddenly died at an early age. He owned a gym and the first thing they had to do was clean up all of the drugs at the gym in case they were seized.

Why would people risk their health in this way ?
30/01/2013 at 21:53
Eggyh73 wrote (see)

If you really want to see what substances do and report anything with meaning you'd need to look at academic and scientific journals.

Sadly I don't think this is true and makes my point.  Because these things are marketed as foods/supplements there is no requirement to carry out any R&D, safety reporting or similar.  Any studies they do fund will simply be to show how their product improves performance/aids weight loss or whatever* but no requirement to show any side effects or proper pharmacokinetics.  There is little/no money in doing those studies, so there is no substantive literature to refer to.

*And even then, the science is often ropey! 

kittenkat    pirate
31/01/2013 at 06:46
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

I love how we all attacked Amelia without even seeing what she was going to write.

To be fair Kitten you made a whole bunch of assumptions without letting Amelia get on with it. Perhaps she may well have made some valid points.

I have more time for Guardian journalists than those at the Mail, thats why Im forever on the Mail site writing rebuttals in their comments section all the time. (oh and the Telegraph who have it in for the RSPCA, the bastards - thats the telegraph, not the RSPCA)

 I for one am willing to hold judgement till we see what Amelia comes up with.

 

I was in assumption mood, as I always am on the last Wednesday of the month. The first piece (in The Guardian) this morning is fine, we'll see if there are any follow up articles.

kittenkat    pirate
31/01/2013 at 06:47

 

Muttley wrote (see)

Agreed re Amelia and her piece. Pity about KK's behaviour towards her.


Like she's going to lose sleep about what's said on an Internet forum. *rolls eyes*

I'm sure she's made of sterner stuff!

31/01/2013 at 07:00

When I was at school there was some publication in the careers room that outlined the attributes best suited to a variety of professions. All quite dull until I came across 'Journalism'

Now I might now get every word spot on but here goes.

'Journalism', 'A form of professional based authorship; employment by particular publication, sometimes freelance. An environment where honesty and integrity are not considered to be assets.

kittenkat    pirate
31/01/2013 at 07:18

I'm just listening to the BBC talking about 'joggers' and supplements.

31/01/2013 at 08:35
What happenes to this thread! You'd think someone had mentioned racing wearing iPods!

I think this news is going to inspire lots of running-is-bad-for-you stories in the tabloids, but I hope it also inspires some serious pieces about health benefits/risks of supplements. I'd be interested to see someone write about runners use of ibuprofen etc in long distance races & the side effects on kidneys, liver and heart. I ran with a girl eating them like Smarties at Brighton Marathon last year, just because she'd read online somewhere that they might be useful and she could buy them in Boots "so they can't be dangerous".

Here's a link to the Guardian piece if anyone is interested, focus is on the danger posed by the supplements, not running, so we can all relax.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/30/claire-squires-runner-dmaa-fatal
31/01/2013 at 09:40

Just to muddy the waters/expand the discussion slightly are there any figures as to how many were hospitalised/sought treatment during the VLM in 2012 ?

I ask as from my viewpoint during the run there seemed to be greater numbers being loaded into ambulances/being attended to than in the previous years that I had run it.(I appreciate this is completely subjective but it is one of my standout memories of the day)

Could the weather conditions on the day have contributed ? It was a relatively warm day with a cold, biting wind when it blew.

31/01/2013 at 09:58

A very sad story & my thoughts are with the girls family and friends. A young life taken so early.

Quite a sensationalist story on MSN today, which doesn't do much for the reputation of running...nevermind the many thousands who turn their life around & see massive health and emotional improvements through running.

My own personal view (and experiences) are that eating a balanced diet, drinking sufficient water and making homemade sports drinks (1/2 water, 1/2 juice and a small pinch of salt) are better than taking supplements in most cases... (obviously some conditions or nutritional deficiencies would benefit from supplements in addition to a balances diet)

I've run a few marathons & only ran to my potential in the marathon where I drank plain water, a few sips of homemade sports drink and ate 5 jelly babies (not in 1 go). Previously I'd suffered terribly with stomach problems when training/racing with gels and flat lucozade, even after trialling them in training and as a result DNF'd a few races.

Partly it is a marketing ploy....and partly it is the placebo effect, taking  a supplement, believing it will help.

We are all different, so what works for one, won't neccessarily work for another. I've seen people gobble down snacks and biscuits 10 minutes before running a race..and running well!  That would cripple my guts & I'd be unable to run for at least another 2 hours. I think that is the key factor - our bodies are all wired differently & we react to substances in different ways.

Sorry if I've gone off on a tangent here....haven't read the whole thread

31/01/2013 at 10:23
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

here you go Dicky M

"St John Ambulance said it treated 4,850 people at the Marathon today while 30 people taken to hospital."

Personally I find that number crazy ..... and actually kind of proves my moanings in another thread. You have morons who clearly have no business being in a marathon, getting slightly uncomfortable then calling for a medic to be treated.

Another reason to make the ballot a fairer process to weed out the once-a-year warriors.

How do you know what problems those people that were treated were suffering from though? Mostly things that can happen to any runner at any time I'll bet - chafing, blisters and pulled muscles.

30 hospitalised out of 35,000 is not that many  - less than 1%

31/01/2013 at 10:31
kittenkat wrote (see)
 

I was in assumption mood, as I always am on the last Wednesday of the month. The first piece (in The Guardian) this morning is fine, we'll see if there are any follow up articles.

Do you not sometimes think it might be a good idea to diarise stepping away from the keyboard for a day or so?  That really was some incredible display of frothy-mouthed rant-spewing yesterday.

Screamapillar wrote (see)
 

How do you know what problems those people that were treated were suffering from though? Mostly things that can happen to any runner at any time I'll bet - chafing, blisters and pulled muscles.

30 hospitalised out of 35,000 is not that many  - less than 1%

I'd be (vaguely) interested to see a break-down of those figures myself.  My abiding memory of seeing St John Ambulance out on the course involved lots of people in uniforms with an outstretched arm wearing a marigold covered in Vaseline.  Take 2,500 sore nipples out of the equation and the figures don't look quite so dramatic.

31/01/2013 at 10:40
PhilPub wrote (see)
I'd be (vaguely) interested to see a break-down of those figures myself.  My abiding memory of seeing St John Ambulance out on the course involved lots of people in uniforms with an outstretched arm wearing a marigold covered in Vaseline.  Take 2,500 sore nipples out of the equation and the figures don't look quite so dramatic.

I was going to say something similar about the Vaseline.  I think also that the very fact that the St John Ambulance was there caused some people to make use of them.  If they weren't there, some runners wouldn't have used them (obviously) but still got around.  By the way, I think that St John Ambulance do a great job so I hope no one misinterprets what I've said there.

Regarding the ballot, as far as I'm concerned it's the organiser's race so they can do what they want.  For many first-time (and possibly only time) marathoners it's the race they want to do and I can't really find a reason to argue with that.  There are plenty of other marathons after all.

31/01/2013 at 10:47

David   Events thread  VLM place going begging

31/01/2013 at 10:48
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

I can ......would you like to hear them?

No thanks...I suspect it's the same old stuff that is often written about the subject.

31/01/2013 at 10:50

"Claire was always in the gym, where this stuff was being widely talked about,"

To be fair to Amelia the gym angle isn't a story because it has been done to death.

However much I want a PB there is no way I am risking a smaller dick.

31/01/2013 at 10:53
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)
 

Phil wouldn't seek treatment if his left leg was falling off. He looks hard as nails in that pic of his.

 


I've mislaid the photo of my blood-gushing nipple from FLM '07*.  Schoolboy error, the Micropor tape came off after about 3 miles but I though nothing of it till spilling Lucozade down my chest at 25 miles.  F*^*^*!!!

And I'd rather people's box-ticking interactions with St John Ambulance went over-reported than under-reported. Can't see anything wrong with using a 20 second pit-stop to get yer crotch Vas'd up if it means you can finish the race in comfort, and maybe a small number of people end up getting treated for something more serious, who wouldn't have stopped in the first place.

*I got in on the ballot, first time.  What a great system! 

31/01/2013 at 10:53
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)
4850 people sought treatment ......... if you need to seek treatment for a bit of chaffing, you should not be running marathons. Im sorry, but at some point we need to draw a line in the sand where we say 'Oh so you think you can run 26 miles, but a bit of chaffing and you go round looking for the nearest medic to help you.'

Maybe Ive been hanging around the Telegraph and Mail forums too long, but at some point you need to man up. Remember that person who is off seeking help for a bit of chaffing has just taken up a spot that someone else who isn't a wimp could have taken.

 

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)
PhilPub wrote (see)
 Take 2,500 sore nipples out of the equation and the figures don't look quite so dramatic.

You know that 99% of people who were 'treated' were for nothing more than what my 6 year old son would call an 'owie' .... it works both ways, you have wimps who say 'Oh Im a bit tired, treat me someone .....' and also from the St Johns point of view, everytime they hand out a band aid they tick a box that says 'Another person 'treated''.

Its all just a numbers game.

I''ve used St John's Ambulance before at the end of a half-marathon, because I felt sick at the end and thought I'd just go in the St John's tent since it was there, to be on the safe side. I had a nice glass of water and a sit-down, and actually felt fine before they'd even filled the form in, but I was still glad they were there, and I'm sure I'd count as a statistic for people who'd been 'treated'.

Anyway, I think it's fair enough that they count me as someone they've helped, but I also don't think I need to, er, 'man up'.

31/01/2013 at 10:56
literatin wrote (see)
 I'm sure I'd count as a statistic

.

I'm not a number I'm a... Oh hang on I am a number in a race

31/01/2013 at 11:03

I expect that a large number of the people treated by SJA were ones who went over to the vans after the marathon to borrow an ice pack for a bit or see if they could get a blister plaster.

Anyway, I don't agree that seeking first aid during a race is the sign of a wimp but glad to see that your controversial posts have resumed

31/01/2013 at 11:17

As like LTS above I have not read the full thread.

Given the size of any race you will have any number of runners' on drugs of some sort for bona-fide health reasons. Most of those drugs will be illegal for 'athletic' purposes. If I am placed 2000 in a marathon I don't care if the runner 1999 had a drug I just say "Well done" . It is none of my business what other runners need to keep them healthy and participate in sport. It is not for me to say that is misuse. Of course I don't want somebody dropping dead but people can drop dead without being on drugs.

The athletes participate at their own risk and I am sure organisers are aware and assume that participants understand what they are doing. In the athletic world the only real interest is in the 'elite' and the 'young pretenders'.

Anyway I ran Manchester some years ago and much to my dismay itbs started about halfway. I stopped at St John Ambulance hoping someone might help (e.g. massage) - they all looked at each other blankly but one young girl enthusiastically jumped up and shouted "Vaseline!".  Made my day, I laugh about it even now.

81 to 100 of 186 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump