Posted by Lloyd on September 30, 2000 at 03:04
In Reply to: crock of shit posted by Doh on September 29, 2000 at 09:25
I've been thinking about this since my answer below, and find that I just don't understand why anyone would think what I wrote was a "crock of shit". Why is it so hard for people to understand (let alone accept) that urination is the certain consequence of hydration? It's accepted in pretty much every endurance sport, to the extent that much is made of making sure that hydration is not taken to the extreme of causing bowel incontinence, let alone having to pee. The amount of water that such an athlete consumes both before and during a race is such that the pee is often actually more dilute than sweat, and the reason they do it is more to do with keeping their blood thin and able to efficiently transport heat, water and nutrients than anything else. The kidneys are there to remove excess water from the blood, something they continue to do admirably despite athletes' best attempts to thin their blood with water, and so they have to pee. In the case of a normal distance triathlon, the rule of thumb is to be sufficiently hydrated and drink enough before the race to have to pee during the bike leg. For a marathon runner, whose race is much longer, usually, and more strenuous in a lot of ways, water and heat stress is much more dangerous and dehydration is something that must be avoided at all costs.
I think anyone who would rather dehydrate than pee their pants is more the idiot.