Boston Bombing

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Kingston said:
But I certainly don't care about training efficiency since it's all for plain fun.

Well, as long as it's fun to you it's all good I suppose. Me, I much rather do 20 minutes of high intensity interval training than 3 hours or more of lower intensity exercise. It's all that is needed to to drastically alter metabolism, gene expression, stamina and a host of other measures.
 
Since we've veered from the (delicate) subject, I can't run. -Never have been able to. Just never figured out the trick of it, and I seem to work against myself mechanically... My son was the same. -Put him in a running race and he was all furious motion, but not at all quick.

I'm not a good swimmer either... but I can cycle like an idiot. about 200 miles in a day is my limit. I enjoy 200km (125 miles) randonneur rides immensely.

My 9-year old son however swims like a fish, and he picked up on the cycling thing from me, and we'll typically do 20-30 miles together. He now competes in triathlon. He's usually very early coming out of swim, and invariably easily in first place by the end of the cycle split, but the running is where he gets reeled in. -Last season was a good one for him, with a top-three finish at every race, and we've been working on his running over the winter. -The season JUST begun again, and he took third at the only race so far down in Tampa... but we were surprised at how much he's slipped back in swimming while we've been concentrating on the running during the off-season... First place went to a fella from Illinois, where many of the swimming pools are probably INDOORS... Down here all the pools are OUTdoors, and a good number of them actually shut town during the 'chilly' months...

He's got races this weekend (Tallahassee) and the following weekend (St. Petersburg). I'm invariably at transition, but my wife's usually at the finish line... That'll be weird.

Seeing his great running improvement, I've pondered if I should go to a 'stride doctor' as well, but I've a feeling my knees will limit any hopes of running (starting too late in life, plus torn ligament and meniscus in the past which still gives me trouble), so I'll probably just stick to cycling.

Besides... cycling can be maddeningly addictive to anyone with any engineering inclination. -The mechanics are fundamentally simple, but the challenge of getting so many things to work efficiently, smoothly, quietly, and be as feather-light as possible is immense, and once you start maintaining them, you start to see the absolute beauty of when things are "right". -Both my main bike and my backup are both full carbon , but the more expensive one is the 'Superlight', and it's fun to watch non-cyclists pick it up for the first time, and wonder why it weighs about as much as a cardboard cutout!

The bike computer tracks heartrate, cadence, speed, temperature, altitude and has programmable alerts for interval training, though I don't use them. -I actually much prefer going long distances and enjoying the ride, as opposed to concentrated energy, super-effcient workouts. The views are just too beautiful. The computer will also track power (in Watts) but I turned that option off, and don't use a powertap... For an amateur like myself, using a power meter to measure my power output would be like hiring an accountant to tell me how poor I am.

Anyhow, I've taken the drift even further away from the original thread topic, but for sure there'll be races all over the place for the next few weeks where people will probably shudder at the thought. -Of course, whoever did this has 'made their point' by now, and the 'element of surprise' is lost, not to mention there'll probably be 'unattended backpack' alerts left and right, but I'm sure people will be paying too much attention for anyone other than a 'wannabe copycat' to try anything like this again soon.
 
SSLtech said:
-Of course, whoever did this has 'made their point'

my apologies to SSLtech by using this quote and will delete upon request.  As there hasn't been any claim of responsibility, my conspiracy theory on this .... the NRA did mass marketing callings in and around Newtown WEEKS after that tragedy spouting their rederic and fear mongering of gun control and 2nd amendment rights ,  then they spent millions on TV commercials on 2nd amendment rights , then they spent more millions on sponsoring a NASCAR race to get their Logo and more  rederic out in mass media.

well ...... I havent hear one word about Gun control or Legislation in ANY news reports lately ... just sayin ...
 
Quote from: pucho812 on April 16, 2013, 02:13:13 PM

    it was in their tweeter feed.

Error.

There shouldn't be anything in their tweeter feed, apart from a non-polar capacitor, shunted by an inductor.

(Unless they've abandoned being passive)

Witty. ;D
 
living sounds said:
Me, I much rather do 20 minutes of high intensity interval training than 3 hours or more of lower intensity exercise. It's all that is needed to to drastically alter metabolism, gene expression, stamina and a host of other measures.

True, but it's not a 1:1 comparison. Looking at Olympic athletes short distance vs. long distance, their physique are very different. Sure it's an extreme comparison, but we are probably experiencing the same effects on a milder scale. Differences in metabolic rates, endurance and recovery from somewhat different types of exorcise we do.

As a general observation, the absolute top marathon runners look very unhealthy, even sick. Their body shapes are weird and they are strangely skeletal. I've seen some that do 2:40 that have basically no muscles in their whole arms, just skin an bones hanging from the torso.  :eek:

[edit]

in Olympics I've observed the change in physique is apparent in running distance past maybe 800 meters. Like even Usain Bolt said when someone asked about whether he would like to try 800 meters, "have you seen how often they throw up past the finish line" or something along those lines.
 
audiophreak said:
SSLtech said:
-Of course, whoever did this has 'made their point'

my apologies to SSLtech by using this quote and will delete upon request. 

Nonononono... I wasn't referring to anybody's post or comments in this thread... so PLEASE don't feel that I was referring to anything you may have posted.

No, I was referring to whoever planted the bomb. -Whatever "point" they were trying to make, they've 'made' it. -That was all i was suggesting.

Please don't think I was being sarcastic, or snide.  (for once, I wasn't!)

Keith
 
Kingston said:
living sounds said:
I'll keep out of the politics this time, but let me say that for health or body fat or general fitness reasons a marathon is not the best thing you can do. Intervall training is much more effective for improving all of these measures, it's faster and it takes far less time and exerts less strain on the body. There's a ton of good studies out there to back this up. For women it's even worse than men, since frequent long-distance running (or equivalent strains) will result in downregulation of thyroid activity, thus a lower basal metabolic rate and very often - paradoxically - weight gain.

Interval training is part of any decent regime. I do that maybe once or twice a week in the months leading to the marathon. But around 8-12km distance running is most important in training. Got to get the speed to maybe 5min/km, cooper test times up to 2700-3000meter.

I wouldn't place much weight on any scientific studies for my personal effort. I will probably never do under 3 hour times. It's at those speeds you will start to see "issues". There's a saying in Finnish that translates roughly to "an athlete never sees a healthy day".

But I certainly don't care about training efficiency since it's all for plain fun. I suspect 3:30 might be my physical limit but that remains to be seen if I ever get serious about this (not this year). I don't count +4 hour marathons that serious. The training isn't an impossible commitment either.

I'm not sure I buy into the concept of faster running being potentially more likely to create injury (although doing it by going around in circles, i.e. at a track, is best kept to one session a week). Learning to run fast via interval repeats improves running economy and crucially, imbues better form - i.e. if you over-stride and land heavily on your feet you will be forced to adapt your technique at faster pace. Admittedly, if you run fast and get fatigued, your form will suffer, which can lead to injuries.

Studies have shown that running a marathon on less than 45 miles p/week training (built up to over a period of months, at 10% increase p/week at most) is not good for cardiovascular health: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#Cardiac_health

If you're a larger build, you might find you can place a lot higher in a 5K than a marathon. As it said in the link I posted, about 10x fewer people will have the skill to break 17 in a 5K than 3hrs in a marathon, yet the latter is what carries more kudos at after-dinner conversations  ::)  .

 
thermionic said:
Studies have shown that running a marathon on less than 45 miles p/week training (built up to over a period of months, at 10% increase p/week at most) is not good for cardiovascular health: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#Cardiac_health

That's very interesting. Thanks for the link. I'm a borderline case it seems and should have things checked just in case. But note also the next study/paragraph about full recovery. Any preparation for a marathon has you in a kind of a recovery mode more or less constantly and the body adapts to this.
 
Hi Keith,
            I was apologizing to you as I used a quote from your post to add my 2 cents
SSLtech said:
audiophreak said:
SSLtech said:
-Of course, whoever did this has 'made their point'

my apologies to SSLtech by using this quote and will delete upon request. 



No, I was referring to whoever planted the bomb. -Whatever "point" they were trying to make, they've 'made' it. -That was all i was suggesting.

  ... I agree and  just built my own 2 cents from there... sorry for confusion

Chip
 
Seeing his great running improvement, I've pondered if I should go to a 'stride doctor' as well, but I've a feeling my knees will limit any hopes of running (starting too late in life, plus torn ligament and meniscus in the past which still gives me trouble), so I'll probably just stick to cycling.

I always say to my friends that they should only pursue running if they love running (which is why I do it). There are far better forms of all-round exercise out there such as swimming and dancing.

If you decide you do have a hankering to become a runner, don't give up. Buy a copy of 'born to run' by Chris McDougal. Get a mini metronome and set the rate to 185 bpm. Make sure you land softly, with a little knee flexion, never letting your cadence drop below 185. Run like a Ninja stalking prey.... Maybe even try a pair of Five Fingers (although they will probably scare your son if he sees you in them) around a grassy park.

Personally, I'd be weary of any 'stride doctor' - I've seen a professor of biomechanics who treats Olympians, but this person was *totally* wrong (their advice got me injured...). Also note that Nigg, who first published a paper citing overt pronation as a prime causal factor for injury has recently publicly stated he doubts the research... There are a lot of solutions looking for a problem in the running world... 

My friend who ran a 2:35 marathon (he's a big guy - never been a stick insect) swears overtly padded shoes ruined his knees. He reckons, had he known what we know now regarding natural running technique in minimal shoes (watch the Africans run - they learn barefoot) his knees would never have been damaged.

Chris Solinsky ran under 13 minutes for 5K. He weighs around 75Kg... Would he do a marathon? Hell no, it's horses for courses.
 
Kingston said:
Looking at Olympic athletes short distance vs. long distance, their physique are very different. Sure it's an extreme comparison, but we are probably experiencing the same effects on a milder scale. Differences in metabolic rates, endurance and recovery from somewhat different types of exorcise we do.

Yes, but interval training is not just short-distance running. It's a mixture of endurance and peak perfomance sprints, and this "shock" to the system is what forces rapid adaption and also higher basal metabolic rate, which is much more important for fat loss than the energy consumed while doing the actual excercise.

And yes, I've read that study about the dangers of marathons, too, that's why I'm never going to do it.
 
living sounds said:
much more important for fat loss

It's only important if your regime is set for efficient fat loss, or some fast dieting fancy.

That's not why I run. I'm probably like thermionic with this. I simply like it. But I'm only just getting into improving my step. I noticed last year about a month after the big run a significant speed improvement with certain more forefoot oriented lighter step. No more heel strike for me, but I have to make a constant conscious effort, which takes away some of the relaxation and fun. Maybe it's time to buy shoes better fit for the feather strike or whatever they call it.
 
Kingston said:
living sounds said:
much more important for fat loss

It's only important if your regime is set for efficient fat loss, or some fast dieting fancy.

That's not why I run. I'm probably like thermionic with this. I simply like it. But I'm only just getting into improving my step. I noticed last year about a month after the big run a significant speed improvement with certain more forefoot oriented lighter step. No more heel strike for me, but I have to make a constant conscious effort, which takes away some of the relaxation and fun. Maybe it's time to buy shoes better fit for the feather strike or whatever they call it.


Well, I wouldn't call vastly improving overall health just a "fancy"...
 
living sounds said:
And yes, I've read that study about the dangers of marathons, too, that's why I'm never going to do it.

That's one way to interpret research results. When you completely ignore the other side: positive effects.

Looking at our evolutionary history and the bodies we inhabit, it seems we are meant go long distance. ie. you will eventually catch that super fast antelope and then eat it. We are no longer a hunter gatherer society, but our genes have not yet adapted. This article is a long one but very thorough and touches all of the areas discussed, including style of running.

http://edge.org/conversation/-brains-plus-brawn
 
living sounds said:
I'll keep out of the politics this time, but let me say that for health or body fat or general fitness reasons a marathon is not the best thing you can do. Intervall training is much more effective for improving all of these measures, it's faster and it takes far less time and exerts less strain on the body. There's a ton of good studies out there to back this up. For women it's even worse than men, since frequent long-distance running (or equivalent strains) will result in downregulation of thyroid activity, thus a lower basal metabolic rate and very often - paradoxically - weight gain.

Yes, unhealthy if pursued to excess. I recall reading about some guy who ran 50 or more a year... bat sh__ crazy. But i expect running one marathon a year is not going to shorten your life. I've only recently heard about the thyroid issues, I think they supplement some olympic athletes for that, with suspicions about performance effects. 

The human body generally adapts to increase capacity beyond previous stresses, which is why weight lifters can lift more weight and distance runners more distance, but with distance running there are natural limits. The well known "wall" that marathon runners hit around mile 20. This is probably too much medical mumbo jumbo but our body burns both sugar and fat, we store months worth of fat, but only modest amounts of sugar (a couple thousand kCal of glycogen), when we run out of sugar even our brain gets cranky, so distance running is all about training our body to preferentially burn fat. Our brain can run on ketones when fasting (a non-sugar energy replacement).  But yes, extreme distance puts extreme stress on the body and consumes a lot of time. The thing I like about running is you can get a decent workout in less than an hour and be done. However if you are training to run a marathon, you need to log the miles and that takes hours. 

JR

@ thermoinic... running marathon on less than 45 miles a week is unhealthy.. ooops guilty. While I only trained to finish, not win, I trained up to marathon distance only running once a week on sundays, since finding the time to run lots of miles during the week is not easy.  I started from my normal 5 mile Sunday run distance (I still run 5 but not on Sunday) and increased it 2.5 miles per week, until I got up to around 25 miles  a week before the marathon, my time 4:40 was nothing to brag about, except to people who never ran a marathon.  8) . I finished better than many who tried that day that I jogged past slowly, while they were walking. Note: While I only ran once a week, during the week I was playing racquetball at lunchtime and basketball a couple nights, so I was active.

Running injuries... Use good equipment. Modern running shoes are remarkably better than they were decades ago. If you are heavy invest in good cushioned shoes. Running form makes a difference, while generally you will find an efficient geometry. Shoes can compensate for pronation issues. Re: a heavy runner blaming padded shoes I won't argue, the knee can see huge force and foot plant and roll can spread out and modulate that force, a padded shoe with crappy foot plant geometry could do harm. Another thing about knees, leg extension exercises are useful to keep the muscles around the knee strong which maintains good knee joint alignment. If the knee is not in proper alignment and force of foot plant is not spread out joint damage can occur. Losing weight will help in many ways. And listen to your body, it will tell you, with pain when you are doing it wrong. Form matters.

Fast-slow... Distance training can actually convert fast twitch to slow twitch, or allow the fast twitch to atrophy so if you want to run quick, you need to train quick. Funny story (funny to me), There was a period in the late '70s when I did zero exercise, but I had a dog  and I would walk him without a leash. One game that I would play with him near the end of our walk maybe 25 yards from my house, I would wait until he wasn't looking then break for the house to get a head start and race him back (I never won). I was doing no exercise, but these short sprints a couple times a day. My older brother was a serious 10k runner and I was the fat slob in the family. At one family get together I challenged him to a foot race between the two telephone poles in front of my house. Everyone looked at me like I was crazy, because he was the "runner". I blew his doors off. Then I grabbed another beer.  8)  (now I am the slow guy, but he doesn't run any more so I can probably still beat him)  :'( 

re: bombing,, I don't think anybody has said what their "point" is yet. Killing and maiming innocents is just painting a target on your back, not making a point. Not to make light of the bombing, but maybe they just didn't like the "better than other runners" attitude of marathoners.  ;D

@SSl re cycling.. Yes this is less stressful on body joints. Uses different parts of leg muscles too. I recall getting a health assessment at the gym and they tested me on an exercise bike, and advised me that I was in poor aerobic shape. While at the time I was running half marathons, so I disagreed with their assessment.  You can't run a half on guts, you can't run any distance more than yards without training at distance. I have entered a few dual-athalons, and tried to bike for exercise when I suffered from plantar fasciitis (in both feet two different times). There are no bike paths in Hickory so sharing back roads with no shoulders, and bubbas in pickup trucks trying to see how close they can come, was not fun. And on a bike you have to pay more attention. While jogging the world goes by a lot slower and you can let your mind wander. 

It i good to hear so many forum members are active exercisers. I have slowed down a lot as I get older, but don't want to ever stop. 
 
JohnRoberts said:
The well known "wall" that marathon runners hit around mile 20. This is probably too much medical mumbo jumbo but our body burns both sugar and fat, we store months worth of fat, but only modest amounts of sugar (a couple thousand kCal of glycogen), when we run out of sugar even our brain gets cranky, so distance running is all about training our body to preferentially burn fat.

I've heard it from very experienced marathon trainers this "wall" is just another myth. In fact the person who designed my training regime was saying the same thing. It stems from the fact beginners tend to overestimate their abilities and start just a little too fast. But the rest of your writing was spot on. You need to estimate and conserve glycogen usage for the whole run. Spend it on the first half and outch the last bits will be agony or a complete halt.

I failed one, I should know. :-[ I got greedy and thought I could go the whole distance at my half-distance speed. No one can do that, but hey, lesson learned first hand.
 
That's one way to interpret research results. When you completely ignore the other side: positive effects.
Looking at our evolutionary history and the bodies we inhabit, it seems we are meant go long distance.

I think every 'body' is different. I xxskied a 30 mile race a few years ago, which took me almost 5 hours. The second half was punishing.
Although I am glad I did it, I felt like the pain in my joints from the training for that distance was not good and I decided I would scale back.
For me, half the distance seemed a much better goal, and i did a 15 mile race the next year. The training felt much better.
I had the health benefits without the stuff that felt bad.
So I would never try a marathon
The distance that provides a benefit to people is probably different and can be anywhere from 10 to 30 miles, I suppose. The length of a 'marathon' is just based on the distance a greek guy had to run to warn another city of an attack, and he died at the end - or so the story goes.

p.s. I will say that I noticed health effects from endurance training (1+ hour exercise) that I never noticed from 20-30 min exercise, even high intensity. Overall stronger health, less effects from the common cold, etc.
 
Audiophreak; -Ah -I get it now. -Very good, no worries!

Thermionic; the improvement in my son's running was what made me wonder if I had such a simple way to 'improve', but I'm not really drawn to running, so I really think that I wouldn't stay with it unless I discovered an unexpected 'delight'.... but it helped immensely having him fight his instinct to move his legs fast, and instead just think about a couple of simple things, like lengthening his stride and think striking gently.

John, I love riding. -On the subject of nutrition, it's also far easier to load up a bike with a broad nutrition supply than to carry it while running, which is another way cyclists 'have it easier'. -Round here we don't have to fight cars; there are hundreds of miles of old railroad routes converted to bike paths under the 'rails-to-trails' program. One 28-mile trail passes within a quarter-mile of our house, and from there we connnect into another trail which is about 40 miles long. That in turn leads to another which I think goes all the way to the coast... Certainly, I can work with my 9-year old and not have to face the same troubles that you do. -There's a wonderful art project which has rapidly sprung up on the trail, 6 miles from our house, and my wife too is cycling further than she's ever done before; with the expanding trail art project providing an ever-evolving distraction on the way out and back again.

She appreciates the fact that I'm 65lbs down from my peak weight, about 45lbs down from the weight I was in my avatar.

Nutrition tip for distance cyclists in the UK: Kendall Mint Cake!
 
dmp said:
I think every 'body' is different. I xxskied a 30 mile race a few years ago, which took me almost 5 hours. The second half was punishing.
Although I am glad I did it, I felt like the pain in my joints from the training for that distance was not good and I decided I would scale back.
For me, half the distance seemed a much better goal, and i did a 15 mile race the next year. The training felt much better.
I had the health benefits without the stuff that felt bad.So I would never try a marathon

This is an important observation, best experienced first hand at your own physical limit. Sounds like you trained way too hard at the time for that 30 mile cross country. I've done the same mistake, training way too hard overestimating my recovery abilities. I eventually injured myself: bursitis at the hip, took a few months to recover. First I thought it was just the shoes. Then not only my doctor, but the shoe salesman too (!!) told me to significantly cut back on training.

For example, as a 4-hour marathon guy I can only expect to shave maybe fifteen minutes this year. Anything more and I risk multiple types of injuries and long term ill-effects on health. And I didn't even know about cardiovascular ill-effects until today.

It did take me years to get into this point. I know some people do it faster, but I don't consider running on painkillers a sport. There seems to be a kind of masochistic subculture in long distance running. I saw some nasty cases last year who basically cried their way through, legs all blistered up before the race even begun.  ::)
 
Kingston said:
JohnRoberts said:
The well known "wall" that marathon runners hit around mile 20. This is probably too much medical mumbo jumbo but our body burns both sugar and fat, we store months worth of fat, but only modest amounts of sugar (a couple thousand kCal of glycogen), when we run out of sugar even our brain gets cranky, so distance running is all about training our body to preferentially burn fat.

I've heard it from very experienced marathon trainers this "wall" is just another myth. In fact the person who designed my training regime was saying the same thing. It stems from the fact beginners tend to overestimate their abilities and start just a little too fast. But the rest of your writing was spot on. You need to estimate and conserve glycogen usage for the whole run. Spend it on the first half and outch the last bits will be agony or a complete halt.

I failed one, I should know. :-[ I got greedy and thought I could go the whole distance at my half-distance speed. No one can do that, but hey, lesson learned first hand.

That the wall occurs at some exact distance for all people is a myth. That the body has only has finite sugar resources is fact.  The body consumes a mix of sugar/fat. Sugar more for quick short term energy, fat for slower long term energy. Endurance training is all about training the body to preferentially burn fat and conserve sugar.  The elite marathon runners have clearly trained their body to use sugar sparingly. In all honesty I didn't hit a physical wall while running my one marathon, more of a mental disconnect when I ran past and away from my perfectly good hotel room.  8)

Some advice for first time marathoners. Distance races are not a mental exercise of will as much as a physical retest of previous training. Mental force will make a difference in the margin but is no substitute for training. Start slow, you can always pick up the pace later if you have too much energy left (you won't). Drink water early and often. If you don't drink water early, you may have trouble drinking enough later (I did), while a good race should have water at least every mile late in the course. Note: it is possible to drink too much water (runners have died from that), my mistake was skipping a few early water stations to avoid the crowds and delay.  Finally have someone meet you at the finish line, that will motivate you to go there, instead of bailing out early. 

=====

Ok here is another anecdote about sugar/fat, and running metabolism. I once participated in an odd charity event where a bunch of us ran a 24 hour relay, a man's team against a woman's team. We only ran 1 mile (4 laps around the track) at a time, and had enough runners that we only had to run about once an hour.  I knew that I needed to conserve my sugar, but after the first few miles, I didn't want to be the slowest man, so pushed up my pace just enough to not be slowest. Within a few hours my legs felt like wood, and there was nothing i could eat or drink to recharge my glycogen store. I had no choice but to settle for being slowest and gutted out the rest of my laps, in less than photgenic form using whatever leg muscles I could rally.  :-[ 

JR

PS: I wonder is Euro zone runners are faster because 4.4% of their beef is horse meat?  ;D
 
Back
Top