more oxygen in the air...

<< I hear so many people say that running is easier just after or during a
period of rain >>

i don't know for certain, but it may be due to the following: 1) moist air is
less irritating to the bronchial tubes and lungs; 2) particulate matter in the
air, eg, polution, might be lower.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

"Etherized" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

<< I hear so many people say that running is easier just after or during a
period of rain >>

i don't know for certain, but it may be due to the following: 1) moist

air is

Quoted message said:

less irritating to the bronchial tubes and lungs; 2) particulate matter in

the

Quoted message said:

air, eg, polution, might be lower.

....and/or

3) air pressure is increased (just like going down in altitude) after the
low pressure area passes through...

4) After a dark and gloomy rain, it's just exhilirating to run in the dry,
crystal clear brightness.

PS: liked the lalique link, but don't dare show it to wife...

Dan Stumpus said:

3) air pressure is increased (just like going down in altitude) after the
low pressure area passes through...

Speaking of which, what is the impact of changing altitude?
Besides the increased air resistance from that thick soup you guys
call air, of course.

Dan Stumpus said:

3) air pressure is increased (just like going down in altitude) after the
low pressure area passes through... >>

Dan , are you the nice man from Barrier-Free Bingo?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

In article <zAo4d.27698$wV.3612@attbi_s54>,

Bear G said:

Dan Stumpus said:

3) air pressure is increased (just like going down in altitude) after the
low pressure area passes through...

Speaking of which, what is the impact of changing altitude?
Besides the increased air resistance from that thick soup you guys
call air, of course.

My uneducated guess is that you suffer far more due to decreased air
pressure (and hence less oxygen uptake) than you gain from decreased air
resistance, which isn't anywhere near as big a factor in running as in
cycling because of the slower speeds. Of course, I'm assuming we're
talking distance running; obviously for sprinting the decreased air
resistance helps a lot (see Olympics: Mexico City).

FWIW, I've heard that the explanation that performance suffers at
altitude because there's less oxygen in the air is incorrect; the big
problem is that there's less pressure forcing the oxygen that's there
into the lungs.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Bear G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:zAo4d.27698$wV.3612@attbi_s54...

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

3) air pressure is increased (just like going down in altitude) after

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

low pressure area passes through...

Speaking of which, what is the impact of changing altitude?
Besides the increased air resistance from that thick soup you guys
call air, of course.

Non authoritatively... I remember reading that the effect is hard to measure
up to about 2,000'. And that above 5,000', you lose about 3% of vo2 max per
thousand feet of gain.

I train at 5 - 10k' frequently in the mountains around LA, although I live
at sea level, and I notice that I just go slower, and have to walk at
less-steep gradients at altitude--grades I can chug up comfortably at 4,000
can't be run at all at 9k'. The legs don't fall off, or anything that
drastic.

On the other hand, at *real* altitude (12k' and above) it is very, very
tough to run up any grade. Try jogging up to Mt. Whitney (14,495'😉 sometime
to see for yourself...

-- Dan

"Etherized" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

3) air pressure is increased (just like going down in altitude) after

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

low pressure area passes through... >>

Dan , are you the nice man from Barrier-Free Bingo?

Now it's my turn to say "Huh?"...

<< Now it's my turn to say "Huh?"... >>

nevermind then. i volunteer for a Barrier-Free Bingo event. fellow who runs
it is named Dan. 🙂

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Harold Buck said:

My uneducated guess is that you suffer far more due to decreased air
pressure (and hence less oxygen uptake) than you gain from decreased air
resistance,

Oh, there's no doubt about that. About 5 years ago I was just
run/walking and had to spend a week in San Francisco. I ran
pretty much every day - and I mean running nonstop for up to an
hour. I got back to Boulder and was so demotivated by resuming
the run/walk cycle that I soon stopped running.

You can read about the converse in some of the comments on local
marathons (or the Lake Tahoe run). Locals don't have a problem,
but visitors will soon crash if they don't make accomodations.

My crack earlier was speed I really do have a hard time judging my
speed at sea level because of the increased air resistance. But
it makes me slow down - what nails you is coming to altitude and
suffering from both the decreased air pressure and natural
tendency to run a little faster than usual.

I was just wondering what the hard numbers were. E.g., as a rule
of thumb do you lose 30 seconds/mile at 5000'?

Quoted message said:

FWIW, I've heard that the explanation that performance suffers at
altitude because there's less oxygen in the air is incorrect; the big
problem is that there's less pressure forcing the oxygen that's there
into the lungs.

You lose about 15% coming to Boulder, I gain about 20% going down
to sea level. When hiking I'm actually most comfortable at
9500-10,000' - just below tree line. That's another 15% reduction
for me, but a 30% reduction for people coming up from the
flatlands. You can easily identify them by their beet red faces.

Dan Stumpus said:

"Bear G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Speaking of which, what is the impact of changing altitude?
Besides the increased air resistance from that thick soup you guys
call air, of course.

Non authoritatively... I remember reading that the effect is hard to measure
up to about 2,000'. And that above 5,000', you lose about 3% of vo2 max per
thousand feet of gain.

That makes sense since atmospheric pressure drops by about 3% per
thousand feet in the lower atmosphere.

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <zAo4d.27698$wV.3612@attbi_s54>,

Bear G said:

Dan Stumpus said:

3) air pressure is increased (just like going down in altitude) after

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

low pressure area passes through...

Speaking of which, what is the impact of changing altitude?
Besides the increased air resistance from that thick soup you guys
call air, of course.

My uneducated guess is that you suffer far more due to decreased air
pressure (and hence less oxygen uptake) than you gain from decreased air
resistance, which isn't anywhere near as big a factor in running as in
cycling because of the slower speeds. Of course, I'm assuming we're
talking distance running; obviously for sprinting the decreased air
resistance helps a lot (see Olympics: Mexico City).

FWIW, I've heard that the explanation that performance suffers at
altitude because there's less oxygen in the air is incorrect; the big
problem is that there's less pressure forcing the oxygen that's there
into the lungs.

The percentage of oxygen in the air is the same at sea level as it is
on top of Mount Everest (~21%). It is the partial pressure of oxygen that
is altered. Sea level air is ~740 mm Hg; at 6200 feet it is ~610 mm Hg
(assuming no low or high pressure fronts roll through). Take 21% of each
and you will see that the difference is about 15% in terms of PO2. The only
people who say there is "less" oxygen just do not understand chemistry or
physics.
Having a larger gradient is better for getting more O2 into the
blood.

Quoted message said:

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sam said:

The percentage of oxygen in the air is the same at sea level as it is
on top of Mount Everest (~21%). It is the partial pressure of oxygen that
is altered. Sea level air is ~740 mm Hg; at 6200 feet it is ~610 mm Hg
(assuming no low or high pressure fronts roll through). Take 21% of each
and you will see that the difference is about 15% in terms of PO2. The only
people who say there is "less" oxygen just do not understand chemistry or
physics.

Well, there IS less oxygen overall, isn't there? I mean, if I give you
21% of $740 and I give someone else 21% of $610, you can't say I'm not
giving the other guy less just because he got the same percentage.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The percentage of oxygen in the air is the same at sea level as it

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on top of Mount Everest (~21%). It is the partial pressure of oxygen

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is altered. Sea level air is ~740 mm Hg; at 6200 feet it is ~610 mm Hg
(assuming no low or high pressure fronts roll through). Take 21% of

each

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and you will see that the difference is about 15% in terms of PO2. The

only

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people who say there is "less" oxygen just do not understand chemistry

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

physics.

Well, there IS less oxygen overall, isn't there? I mean, if I give you
21% of $740 and I give someone else 21% of $610, you can't say I'm not
giving the other guy less just because he got the same percentage.

Oh, God! Somebody slap him. Hard. Please?

Quoted message said:

The only
people who say there is "less" oxygen just do not understand chemistry or
physics.

Actually I was a physics major who solved the ideal gas law in a
gravity well under adiabatic conditions. The solutions for
pressure and density were identical except for the scaling & unit
conversion constants up front.

There really is 15% less air here, or if you prefer we only have
850 oxygen molecules for every 1000 oxygen molecules at sea level.
(OT: I'm using 85% since the Denver skew-T plots start at 850mbar
and sea level is just over 1000mbar. That may be the altitude of
the first sounding, not ground level at the airport.)

But don't take my word for it - ask any pilot. Lift depends on
density, not pressure, and if they're decoupled pilots should find
it as easy to fly out of Aspen as it is to fly out of LA.

Or for that matter ask any baseball fan. Air resistance also
depends on density, not pressure, and baseballs should fly the
same in Coors field as Wrigley field. Wait, that might not be the
best example since Chicago is also well above sea level. :-)

Quoted message said:

Having a larger gradient is better for getting more O2 into the
blood.

If so then altitude has a double whammy. I'm not saying it isn't
a factor, but wouldn't there be at least some psychiological
adaption to this?

np426z said:

"Bear G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Actually I was a physics major who solved the ideal gas law in a
gravity well under adiabatic conditions.

And I'm the Vice-President of Botswana and I've developed a cloud-stealing
device.

Whatever. If anyone is interested in the real science, not
np426's fantasy, a quick google search turned up

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node55.html

Warning: requires knowledge of thermodynamics. I misremembered
the equations slightly - compare equations 336 and 340, and the
paper has z0 and z1 wrong. z0 is 8.44km and z1 is 29.5 km. Quick
check:

z0 = P/gp = (101325 Pa) / (9.8 m/s^2) / (1225 g/m^3) = 8.44 km

This gives us the equations

P(z)/P(0) = (1 - z/96.9)^3.5

and

p(z)/p(0) = (1 - z/96.9)^2.5

for dry air where z is in 1000s of feet.

Running the numbers through a calculator gives us

P p T
5k' 83% 88% 95% (3F per 1000', constant)
10k' 68% 76% (commercial aircraft pressurization)
15k' 56% 66% (a bit higher than any mtn in lower 48)

This also gives us the 3%/1000 pressure drop mentioned earlier.
That difference is about 2.25 pounds/square inch on the empty soda
bottle that I bring back from my hike - no wonder the sides are
pushed in!

Anyway, in Denver the pressure is only 83% of its value at sea
level, and the air density is only 88% of its value at sea level.
Just below treeline at the ski resorts the numbers drop to 68% and
76%, respectively. N.B. a drop in density is a real drop in the
number of oxygen molecules in a given volume of air, not just a
drop in the partial pressure.

Perhaps np426 is a fish. Water, unlike air, is incompressible and
density does not change with depth.

close enough for Jazzzzzzz v.0921

(P>001)

Subject: Re: more oxygen in the air...
From: Bear G <A
HREF="[email hidden]">[email hidden]</A>
Date: Thu, Sep 23, 2004 8:37 PM
Message-id: <s%J4d.145143$3l3.58948@attbi_s03>

np426z said:

"Bear G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Actually I was a physics major who solved the ideal gas law in a
gravity well under adiabatic conditions.

And I'm the Vice-President of Botswana and I've developed a cloud-stealing
device.

Whatever. If anyone is interested in the real science, not
np426's fantasy, a quick google search turned up

<A
HREF="http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node55.html">http
://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node55.html</A>

Warning: requires knowledge of thermodynamics. I misremembered
the equations slightly - compare equations 336 and 340, and the
paper has z0 and z1 wrong. z0 is 8.44km and z1 is 29.5 km. Quick
check:

z0 = P/gp = (101325 Pa) / (9.8 m/s^2) / (1225 g/m^3) = 8.44 km

This gives us the equations

P(z)/P(0) = (1 - z/96.9)^3.5

and

p(z)/p(0) = (1 - z/96.9)^2.5

for dry air where z is in 1000s of feet.

Running the numbers through a calculator gives us

P p T
5k' 83% 88% 95% (3F per 1000', constant)
10k' 68% 76% (commercial aircraft pressurization)
15k' 56% 66% (a bit higher than any mtn in lower 48)

This also gives us the 3%/1000 pressure drop mentioned earlier.
That difference is about 2.25 pounds/square inch on the empty soda
bottle that I bring back from my hike - no wonder the sides are
pushed in!

Anyway, in Denver the pressure is only 83% of its value at sea
level, and the air density is only 88% of its value at sea level.
Just below treeline at the ski resorts the numbers drop to 68% and
76%, respectively. N.B. a drop in density is a real drop in the
number of oxygen molecules in a given volume of air, not just a
drop in the partial pressure.

Perhaps np426 is a fish. Water, unlike air, is incompressible and
density does not change with depth.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

I live in the mountains and experience a "buzz" the first time or two
I run at sea-level.

I've read some conflicting claims about running in hyper-oxygen partial
pressure below sea-level at the Dead Sea. You also have to deal the
increased resistance of thicker air.

"rick++" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I live in the mountains and experience a "buzz" the first time or two
I run at sea-level.

I've read some conflicting claims about running in hyper-oxygen partial
pressure below sea-level at the Dead Sea. You also have to deal the
increased resistance of thicker air.

For an endurance runner, the air resistance is negligible. For sprinters,
not so.

There is a good bit of literature on hyperoxic training in cyclists. For
instance cyclists living in Colorado Springs might do interval workouts on
26% O2 (which gives you sea level PO2) or 60% O2 (which is---heck I cannot
remember but is pretty nice!). Triathletes there have used it as well.
This is an altitude dwellers version of live high, train low (or LHTO2).
Look up papers by Morris and by Wilber on PubMed.