Scott Williams <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
[email protected] wrote:
>> Scott Williams <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>---I finally found out why I've been running like ****...my hematocrit would be low even for a
>>>>sedentary person. Much less trying to race. I need to back off on the miles and take iron now
>>>>and try and get myself fixed before Boston.
Andy Hass
>>
>>
>>>If you don't mind telling, what was it?
>>
>>
>>>Scott
>>
>>
>> 41.8. Normal is 42-52. Your average couch potato would be higher. Andy Hass
> Oops. Sorry Andy, I missed it in your earlier post.
> Have you ever gotten another reading to compare? And I assume your thyroid levels checked out OK?
> From what I've read, 42% is very much in the normal range. Depending on your source, I've seen
> "normal" quoted as 37-48%, 39-49%, 39-52%, etc. But >50% got Marco Pantani busted in the Giro
> D'Italia (effectively ending his career), and very few cyclists need to get a medical waiver for
> exceeding 50% (the limit in professional cycling for 5 yr. now). And a helluva lot of money is on
> the line in pro cycling, so I would think they would be somewhat "gracious" in their limit.
> Here is a clip about a 1999 UCI statement concerning pro cyclist hematocrit levels:
> "The UCI announced on Tuesday that 16 riders hold 'statements' proving that they have naturally
> occurring levels of hematocrit above 50 percent. Amongst these 16, are riders in all categories
> and all disciplines. The 16 are not uniquely the riders in the Elite road category. No rider at
> the highest levels of the UCI classification
> [e.g., Lance Armstrong] are holders of such statements, the UCI statement said."
> Note that NONE of the hematocrit-endowed athletes registered in the super-elite, God's-gift-to-
> cycling category.
> Also, hematocrit actually drops in highly trained athletes because of increased plasma volume.
> Bill Rogers' hematocrit was probably much higher before he made his famous transition from smoking
> couch potato to elite marathoner.
> I read an interesting article, an interview with one of the top Italian cycling coaches. He said
> that in trying to gage the potential of his cycling prospects, he wasn't overly concerned about
> hematocrit, as it was far from being the only factor in determining the future success of an
> athlete. In fact, he hypothesized that athletes, such as yourself possibly, who register in the
> lower 40s, were forced to adapt physiologically in other ways that would provide greater benefit
> to them down the road than having an naturally high hematocrit level.
> When I was getting some cardiac tests, I noted that my hematocrit registered at 49 (kind of
> perverse of me, considering I was possibly facing heart surgery), and, as you know, I am pack
> fodder by any standard. And always will be. I also found my hematocrit curious, because I have a
> great deal of trouble adjusting to high altitude. You'd think those extra blood cells could make
> themselves more useful, but obviously there is more to it.
> Sorry to blather on, but it seems to me you shouldn't get psyched out if your hematocrit doesn't
> bounce into the high 40s. It doesn't mean you're going to bomb.
> And one last thing, we all know what a hard-working, busy guy you are. Do you think you might be
> burning the candle at both ends? -- Aren't you the guy who's getting married this spring??? I'd
> like to think that this gal is taking up a fair amount of your energy! ;-)
> Try to get your rest and eat some lean red meat. I wish you good health and the very best
> at Boston!
> Scott
Interesting notes...Yes, I assumed stress/overdoing it might be part of it, but it's that rest
actually makes the symptoms worse that has baffled me. That and the fact that my aerobic threshhold
has obviously been falling despite my training. Maybe it's a little of everything... Andy Hass
