About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 3:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Congratulations!  Accomplishments are always fulfilling. 

How old are you?  Three seven-minute miles is  a nice run.


Post 1

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 6:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good for you, Dean!

How did you train for it?

Ed

Post 2

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To train: I ran four times over the last month : O. Each run was actually a really hard workout because I was switching from heal strikes to ball of foot strikes.

Other than that, unfortunately I haven't been too athletic this year. Only about once a month I got my heart rate up for a good amount of time.

Post 3

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 9:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[deadening silence and complete dumbfoundery]

Post 4

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not sure what you mean Ed.

I measured my resting pulse rate the morning before the race using a chest strap... 40 beats per minute.

My muscles are a little soar from the run yesterday. Hopefully this weekend I'll be repaired. Then I'd like to measure my maximum heart rate. :)

Then if I have a lasting motivation... I'm going to try running as long as I can at 11mph pace (~3x per week) and see if I can really improve my 5k time.

Post 5

Friday, August 13, 2010 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

Working as a 'health & exercise science' instructor, I had this one student who reminds me of you now. Besides having Aspberger's (no, that's not why he reminds me of you) and being able to remember specific things years later -- he was a natural, physical superman. He had your cockiness, too -- which is, in my opinion, a good trait to have (as it's better than being too modest).

Dean, if you really want to impress yourself with your own dramatic improvements, then I suggest that you follow a 'high-intensity interval training' program. See me for details.

:-)

Ed


Post 6

Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 12:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

If you want to improve your 5K time over the short-term, you need to pick up the pace. Eleven minutes a mile is too slow, given your 7 minute per mile racing speed. My best 5K time was 18 minutes and 41 seconds -- about 6 minutes per mile, and I would often run four 6 1/2 minute miles in practice. But over the long term -- looking down the road a few years -- you would want to do a lot of what we used to call LSD (long slow distance) in order to build a base of endurance conditioning; otherwise, you won't make as much progress. I was never able to sustain that kind of training, because I was not biomechanically suited for it; I over-pronated and would tend to get injured when I increased my mileage. But over the long-run, it's the best approach. If you can, you should put in at least 50 miles a week.

Half a century ago, an interesting study was done with high-school milers, starting in 9th grade and lasting until their senior year. The runners were divided into four groups. The first group (Group A) did nothing but speed and interval work; the second (Group B), mostly speed work with some distance training; the third (Group C), mostly distance with some speed work; and the fourth (Group D), nothing but distance (LSD).

The results were fascinating. After the first year, Group A turned in the best mile times; the second year, Group B did; the third year, Group C; and the fourth year (when they were seniors), Group D (the LSD group) performed the best. The speed work gave quicker results, but they soon faded, because the runners hadn't built a sufficient base of endurance conditioning.

This gave rise to the LSD school of training. If you've ever watched the early sub-four-minute milers -- Roger Bannister and John Landy -- you can see them collapse as they cross the finish line. Today, the best milers finish standing up and recover fairly quickly, because they've developed a strong base of endurance conditioning. They do a substantial amount of distance training to augment whatever speed work they do.

But if you want to improve your times quickly, focus on nothing but speed and interval training. Of course, you pay a price for that. You can only do this for so long, because eventually you burn out. It's too hard on the body, but it yields quick and early results -- probably because it trains more of the fast twitch muscle fibers

Dean, I'm surprised your resting pulse is so low, especially for someone at your young age. I would have expected your times to be better given such a low heart rate, which is usually the result of extensive endurance training. But, obviously, you haven't been doing much training. Sounds like you're a natural! :-)


Post 7

Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 6:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Haha, you two always seem to disagree on fitness issues : P.

At first glance to me it seems to make more sense to do interval training. Takes less time, seems like less wear and tear on my body, and seems to be closer to the type of exercise of my favorite sport: soccer. I'm not against doing some Long Slow Distance. Honestly I need to research which kind of exercise program might be better for me.

Soccer is like interval training over a span of one to two hours : O.

One thing that should help is that soon I'm going to be moving right next to a park where people play pickup soccer games each day. That's heaven to me : ). Oh that would be neat to play soccer with my new GPS HR Monitor watch!

Bill, maybe you were prone to injury in LSD due to using heavily padded shoes and heal striking? Using minimal shoes and ball/mid foot striking is recently highly recommended. Its said to improve foot/leg strength and significantly reduce the chance of injury due to a more natural & less jarring running form.

Post 8

Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill and I like to argue because we like each others' company. It's almost like we make stuff up to disagree with each other sometimes.

Aaaaah, kids will be kids.

Anyway, interesting study, Bill!

At some point, I'd like to read it. It's difficult for me to fathom that, after 4 years, high-schoolers doing LSD (doing 4 years of LSD) ran miles faster than all others could. I'm sure they "felt" like they were running faster than all others, but now I dare say that I do digress.

:-)

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/14, 7:59am)


Post 9

Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

At the time I was running, this advice was not available. Also, I was in my 40's at the time, and the older you get, the harder is to adapt to new shoes. I tried orthotics, prescribed by a podiatrist for the U.S. Olympic team, who happened to be practicing in my area. But, even with his expertise, the orthotics didn't work; they created other problems. I improved somewhat with a change in running shoes.

Ed,

Unfortunately, I don't have the reference for the study, but the mile run uses a 50/50 combination of fast- and slow-twitch muscle fibers. The LSD trains the slow-twitch. Then with "sharpening" or speed work added to a base of endurance conditioning, you can optimize your performance. The bottom line is that it works. Lots of experience to back it up.


Post 10

Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I prefer HIIT too. For one I'm absolutely bored to tears doing long distance running. I hate it. I like the HIIT-like nature of the P90X cardio workouts I do because it's more interesting. Second, while doing nothing but HIIT type of cardio for three months, I decided to try and do some long distance running. I ran for 5 miles and barely got my heart rate up. I never do long distance running, so I'm convinced the HIIT training is what allowed me to run 5 miles like that. Also I'm not sure if there's that much wear and tear Bill, I only do two cardio workouts a week yet I was able to get great results. Also I noticed after I did that run I actually experienced quite a bit of aches and pains in my feet and knees, something I never really experienced doing HIIT.

Post 11

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

I invite you to consider measuring your aerobic capacity once a week with a simple 5-minute test I devised (i.e., the Thompson "5 X 5"). You jog for 5 minutes @ 5 mph (the "work rate") -- and then you check your heart rate.

Fit folks'll have low heart rates at this work rate, other folks'll have high heart rates. You can estimate whether any program improves your aerobic fitness for running by performing this simple 5-min. test.

Ed

Post 12

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

You may be interested to learn that ...

1) 8 weeks of interval training improved the improvements of female soccer players' aerobic capacity (VO2max) vs. their usual, soccer, endurance training program:

"Analysis of variance indicates no differences in VO(2) values within the group of athletes before participating in the exercise program. After the 8 weeks of training, the MI-ET group of athletes had significantly greater average VO(2) values (62.13 +/- 0.96 ml O2.kg.min vs. 57.27 +/- 1.59 ml O2.kg.min), p = 0.015, along with a greater group average of change in VO(2) (12.44 +/- 0.92 ml O2.kg.min vs. 7.72 +/- 0.99 ml O2.kg.min), p < 0.001."
--J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):1773-81.


2) Recreationally-active college males improved both their aerobic capacity and anaerobic (lactate) threshold by performing only six 90-second bouts @ 80% VO2max (separated by 180-seconds of rest), 3 times a week for just 6 weeks!:

"Group x time repeated-measures analyses of variance revealed that IT improved &OV0312;o2max (5.5 ml.kg.min), anaerobic threshold (3.8 ml.kg.min), work output (12.5 J.kg), glycolytic work (11.5 J.kg), mean power (0.3 W.kg), peak power (0.4 W.kg), and max power (0.4 W.kg); p < 0.05. Posttesting LA was lower on average for IT at the 5-minute mark but significantly so at the 15-minute mark."
--J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jul 23.


3) 6 weeks of interval training (in apparently sedentary folks?) with 30-seconds all-out effort followed by 4-minute rest periods (a 30s:4m work:rest ratio) for 6 bouts per exercise session at a frequency of 3 exercise sessions per week improved their pre-post 5-km time-trials (TT) by over 5%:

"Training increased TT performance (P < 0.05) in the 30:4 (5.2%), 10:4 (3.5%), and 10:2 (3.0%) groups. VO(2max) increased in the 30:4 (9.3%) and 10:4 (9.2%), but not the 10:2 group."
--Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010 Sep;110(1):153-60.

Ed

Post 13

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the suggestions Ed. Maybe what I'll do is something like that 5mph pace as a warm up before my interval training.

Now talking about nutrition, I've been looking into the paleo diet and paleo raw diet. Any thoughts on those? They sound very similar to what you suggest to eat Ed. Some people seem to be highly recommending fruits and vegetables over meat, but I think I enjoy eating meat a lot more : ).

At the bottom of this page is a food pyramid of what kind of diet I'm thinking of trying out.

The purpose of my diet is to optimize my mental and physical performance and to feel great, and to live a long healthy life. Diet should attempt to provide all nutritional needs and minimize harmful substances. I don't want to "loose fat" because I don't have that much fat already, as you probably already know, I am invulnerable to becoming fat. I definitely wouldn't mind improving my bone/joint/connective tissue/muscle strength.


Paleo says yes to: meat, seafood, eggs, fruits and berries, vegetables, nuts and seeds

Paleo says no to: grains, dairy products, potatoes, processed foods, sugar

Paleo sounds very similar to in general the current nutritional science. I just wonder if things like Arnold whole grain bread, and beans should be completely removed from my diet.

Tried eating some raw eggs... not sure what to make of it yet :O. Gotta fight my entire life's training that uncooked eggs should be treated like bacteria infested toxic material. This topic is definitely controversial.

What I like about the "raw" idea is less preparation time.

Post 14

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

I don't go for totally raw foods. Some foods ought to be cooked at a maximum temperature of 250 degrees F (cooking with higher temperatures than that can be harmful). You said:

****************
Tried eating some raw eggs... not sure what to make of it yet :O. Gotta fight my entire life's training that uncooked eggs should be treated like bacteria infested toxic material. This topic is definitely controversial.
****************

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was filmed in "Pumping Iron" (~1970), it was okay to drink raw eggs out of a blender like he did. Because of modern farming, however, it's not okay anymore. At least 6 out of every 12 eggs now is infected with enough salmonella to lead to food poisoning.

If you get a whole bunch of sickening food poisoning from what you just inadvertently did, then consult a physician. If you are unable to get to a physician, you may consider the idea of swallowing a whole bunch of charcoal capsules or maybe just a whole bunch of garlic.

The charcoal absorbs almost everything inside your digestive tract and you end up expelling a totally black, alien-looking kind of a stool. The garlic kills most common microorganisms, but makes you smell funny for a day or two. Sometimes, you can kill yourself with garlic if you are also on a blood-thinner.

Try to stay alive.

Ed

Post 15

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 1:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

The Paleo Pyramid in the Living Paleo link you provided is misleading. The reason that this is true is because it is apportioned according to calorie (energy) proportions rather than what is intuitive to dieters: size/weight proportions.

While it's true that most paleo calories came from meat, that's just because meat is concentrated in calories. By weight, our distant ancestors ate a dieter higher in plants than in it was in meat. Recent analyses indicate that this is optimal (to eat more ounces or grams of plants than of meats).

A good minimum ratio -- by weight -- is to eat at least twice as much fruits and veggies as meat. Here is a simplified example of day's food intake by weight:

1 pound of meat/fish
1 pound of fruits
1 pound of vegetables

And here is a bit more-comprehensive example involving the consumption of 4 lb of food:

1.00 lb of Plants [spinach, asparagus, etc]
0.25 lb of Roots and tubers [yams, sweet potatoes, etc]
0.25 lb of Berries
1.00 lb of Fruits
0.25 lb of Nuts (half from walnuts and/or Macademias)
0.25 lb of Wild terrestrial animals [buffalo, venison, rabbit, ostrich, etc]
0.50 lb of Fowl [chicken, turkey, etc]
0.25 lb of Fish and seafood
0.25 lb of Eggs

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/15, 2:13pm)


Post 16

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And here is a rough-&-ready visualization of these weight/size proportions as viewed on a dinner plate:

25% of the plate covered with meat, fish, and fowl
25% of the plate covered with fruit
25% of the plate covered with plants
25% of the plate covered with nuts, eggs, berries, and tubers

Ed

Post 17

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 3:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
*************
Ed: Try to stay alive.
*************

Haha! Thanks for the concern. I purchased some "organic free roaming" chicken eggs, and the expiration date is well into the future. I've eaten 7 so far in the last 24 hours with no problem.

6/12 raw eggs cause salmonella poisoning? Hmmm... where did you get your information from? Hearsay from the FDA? : P


Ed, what kind of calorie count would that 4 pounds of food be?
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 8/15, 3:33pm)


Post 18

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 8:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

Here is a graph showing the presence of 6 salmonella strains in chickens:
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content-nw/full/86/14_suppl/E149/F2


It comes from this study:
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/14_suppl/E149


And here is a good quote:
The isolation rate for Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis (SE) in humans in the United States of America (USA) increased from 1,207 sporadic isolates identified in 1976 (0.6 isolates/100,000 population) to 10,201 identified in 1995 (4.0/100,000 population). The proportion of reported Salmonella isolates which were SE increased from 5% to 25% during the same time period. In 1990, 1994, and 1995, SE was the most commonly reported reported Salmonella serotype in the USA. Much of this increase has been associated with the consumption of contaminated shell eggs. An examination of the results of a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey of spent hens at slaughter and unpasteurised liquid egg at breaker plants (liquid egg processors) in 1991 and 1995 reveals an increase in the prevalence of SE isolates overall and in most regions of the USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9501367

And Dean, if the USDA (doubly beholden to farmers at the same time as to consumers) says that there's some bad food out there -- believe it. They wouldn't lie (because they are so beholden to Big AgriBusiness). If anything, they would sugar-coat the problem (if you'll pardon the pun).



*********************
Ed, what kind of calorie count would that 4 pounds of food be?
*********************

I'll have to work that out. My eyeball guess is that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000-5000kcals (enough for most athletes) -- but a little research by me would seriously narrow down that eyeball estimate. It's too late and I'm too tired to perform this task now. Give me a day or three and I'll have a good estimate of what this "4-lbs of food" sample day provides ...

Ed
edited to add hyperlinks


(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/16, 10:17am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The inside of an egg was once considered almost sterile. But, over recent years, the bacterium Salmonella enteritidis (Se) has been found inside a small number of eggs. Scientists estimate that, on average across the U.S., only 1 of every 20,000 eggs might contain the bacteria. So, the likelihood that an egg might contain Se is extremely small – 0.005% (five one-thousandths of one percent). At this rate, if you’re an average consumer, you might encounter a contaminated egg once every 84 years.

From http://www.incredibleegg.org/egg-facts/egg-safety/eggs-and-food-safety

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.