60 yrs and up

1181182184186187197

Replies

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,288 Member
    Welcome to the thread, @michaeljoleksak and @bigfatRichard.

    Michael, your meal looks beautiful and tasty. It's nice to have those cooking skills in your toolbox: There are so many yummy, healthful foods (and cooking methods) available, for those willing to experiment.

    On several threads, I've mentioned that I enjoy food more now that I'm giving it the thought and attention involved in being selective and choosing the delicious things that are "worth their calories" to me personally . . . versus the olden days of just shoveling whatever was handy into my mouth, a lot of the time, including things that - on reflection - I don't even enjoy all that much. I mean, they were OK, but mostly I ate them because they were there, kinda. 😬

    Richard, I do wish you good luck, but also encourage you to post any particular questions or challenges you may have. There's a wealth of experience here in the MFP Community, on this thread and beyond. I've learned a lot here, and I think been more successful than would've been possible without those helps.

    Wishing you both - and everyone here - excellent long-term outcomes!
  • NewLor2022
    NewLor2022 Posts: 1 Member
    Hi everyone! I am new to this and am starting my counting of grams of all foods. I met with a trainer and am going to learn what exercises are best for me. Bad knees and balance issues are first concerns. I learned how to flyfish and keep falling down. (Darned rocks!) I would love to get stronger to enjoy it more.
    Gotta go learn about this app and how to use it!
  • Arc2Arc
    Arc2Arc Posts: 484 Member
    edited August 29
    Hi all. A question for those who stay relatively fit and monitor their exercise heart rate and VO2max. Reading up on how those metrics relate to age, it seems normal for both to decline over time.

    I am 65 and have kept in good to extremely good shape over the years. I work out aerobically approx. 280 minutes a week. My peak HR under exercise stress still gets to the mid 140-s without too much effort some days while other days it’s really hard to get it to react and wants to stay in the low 130-s for about a third of the workout and then stubbornly climbs.

    VO2 max seems stuck in the low 40-s despite feeling as though I’m in as good a shape as when younger and VO2 Max was a lot higher. I suspect it’s just age but anyone else have insight or experience as to this?

    Edit: I work out at 6,000 feet elevation.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,288 Member
    edited August 29
    Arc2Arc wrote: »
    Hi all. A question for those who stay relatively fit and monitor their exercise heart rate and VO2max. Reading up on how those metrics relate to age, it seems normal for both to decline over time.

    I am 65 and have kept in good to extremely good shape over the years. I work out aerobically approx. 280 minutes a week. My peak HR under exercise stress still gets to the mid 140-s without too much effort some days while other days it’s really hard to get it to react and wants to stay in the low 130-s for about a third of the workout and then stubbornly climbs.

    VO2 max seems stuck in the low 40-s despite feeling as though I’m in as good a shape as when younger and VO2 Max was a lot higher. I suspect it’s just age but anyone else have insight or experience as to this?

    Edit: I work out at 6,000 feet elevation.

    Full disclosure: I'm not expert about VO2max. Since you've researched you probably already have any info I have. I don't deal with altitude (in mid-Michigan), but one of the estimators I've used (at Concept 2, the rowing machine company's site), says this in their calculator FAQ (edited to the key relevant points by me):

    Over the years, Dr. (Fritz) Hagerman** performed VO2max tests using gas analysis on many subjects.

    . . . .

    Dr. Hagerman advises that we lose about 1% of our maximal sea level aerobic capacity for every thousand feet of ascent above 5000 ft. But it is important to understand that generalities or predictions of successful acclimatization to altitude is dangerous.

    ** he's from Ohio State University

    Are you getting your VO2max numbers from a sports lab test, or something like a fitness tracker estimate or online calculator? How does your VO2max compare to age norms for men, do you know?

    I'm not sure what I should take away from the part I bolded in your post. What's your RPE in those workouts, or what percent of HRreserve or HRmax do you think you're at? That 2nd part - the up-drift - seems normal/expected, i.e., heart rate drifts up in a longer workout of steady intensity. Various things can make a given workout intensity register a higher HR at one time than another, too: Ambient temperature, hydration levels, more.

    FWIW: I've not done a sports lab test myself, though there's a university lab here and I've thought about it. My Garmin gives me an estimate of my walking VO2max, with an age-based comparison to other women. (That's estimated at 38, top 5% for my demographic.) Concept 2 (rowing machine manufacturer) also has an estimator, but one needs to indicate training level. That one estimates me at anywhere from 27.59 (if highly trained, which would be "average" VO2max for my age+F) to 37.93 (if not highly trained, which would be "excellent") - and that based on a 2k test that wasn't all that recent - so who the heck knows. (I expect I'm somewhere in between, WRT training level; and since I'm not doing structured training anymore plus I'm now older, I'm sure my max 2k pace is slower anyway.)

    From my coaching education, my understanding is that occasional (once or twice a week) but relatively short, very high intensity cardiovascular exercise (like 90-95% HRmax, SS or interval format) is a way to sharpen VO2max before a race or similar. This part is speculation, but I'd expect relatively pure CV exercise to be more effective for this, or at least one's target exercise "done harder", vs. adding an explicit resistance component to make it harder: I'm thinking that a (new or increased) strength component muddies the waters about why HR is increasing, i.e. oxygen demand vs. one of the stress/strain kinds of reasons. IOW, when it's said that HIIT is a good modality for increase VO2max, I'd take that to mean classic CV HIIT, not the modern strength/calisthenics circuit type HIIT.

    For sure, basing any of that training on HR ranges requires having a really good estimate (or better, tested measurement) of HRmax, since the age-based HRmax formulas are substantially off for a fair fraction of people, as I'm sure you know. (I'm 66, so the 220-age estimate would be 154, a number I can exceed while not feeling terrible. I haven't done a max test in a few years, but at that point HRmax was around 180, and my RPE at various HR intensities suggests that it may still be at least near that. If it is, 154bpm would be around 80% HRreserve, 86% HRmax. If I used that age estimate of HRmax to train, I'd be undertraining pretty severely.)

    IMU: Yes, HRmax tends to decline with age (hence the age formulas), but less so in people who've kept up training as they age (IMU one of the pitfalls of the age estimates that are based on broad population data).

    Also, as you mentioned, VO2max does tend to decline with age. I don't know whether that effect is countered by regular training in the way I understand HRmax to be.

    Myself, I didn't train when young, started training/competing in my late 40s, have kept up an OK-ish (I think) workout schedule since, but haven't done structured race training in quite a while. Garmin thinks I'm getting around 425-550ish "activity minutes" in recent weeks, and do something in that range most of a typical year nowadays. "Activity minutes" are their way of looking at the "150 minutes of moderate intensity or 75 minutes of vigorous intensity physical activity per week" concept. They double minutes spent when doing something they think is "vigorous" when they come up with the weekly number to compare to the 150 minute generic goal, essentially. I don't know my wall clock hours without compiling that data, but a recent fairly typical week was 155 minutes moderate, 190 minutes vigorous, in their scheme (so 155+(190*2)=535 "activity minutes" for the week).

    I don't really know how I should think about VO2max when not competing, personally. In one sense, these days a high VO2max plus 6 bucks would buy me a large latte, y'know? In my sport, athletes work on a range of intensities (aerobic, anaerobic threshold, lactate tolerance, blah blah blah) in a varying periodized mix through the year, with super high intensity more minimal most of the year (though the other intensities make some contribution to VO2max, of course). I don't know anything about other sports. Mine is short-endurance, which is kind of a weird niche in the grand scheme. If I were training, I'd be following a structured plan, and be thinking more about pace than VO2max explicitly as races approached.

    I doubt that any of this helps with your question, but it's the ramble I've got. 🤣 You might want to post a thread in the Fitness and Exercise part of the Community to ask, where there are people lots more informed than I am . . . and also some as willing to talk through their hat as I am. 🙄 🤣


  • Arc2Arc
    Arc2Arc Posts: 484 Member
    edited August 30
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Arc2Arc wrote: »
    Hi all. A question for those who stay relatively fit and monitor their exercise heart rate and VO2max. Reading up on how those metrics relate to age, it seems normal for both to decline over time.

    I am 65 and have kept in good to extremely good shape over the years. I work out aerobically approx. 280 minutes a week. My peak HR under exercise stress still gets to the mid 140-s without too much effort some days while other days it’s really hard to get it to react and wants to stay in the low 130-s for about a third of the workout and then stubbornly climbs.

    VO2 max seems stuck in the low 40-s despite feeling as though I’m in as good a shape as when younger and VO2 Max was a lot higher. I suspect it’s just age but anyone else have insight or experience as to this?

    Edit: I work out at 6,000 feet elevation.

    Full disclosure: I'm not expert about VO2max. Since you've researched you probably already have any info I have. I don't deal with altitude (in mid-Michigan), but one of the estimators I've used (at Concept 2, the rowing machine company's site), says this in their calculator FAQ (edited to the key relevant points by me):

    Over the years, Dr. (Fritz) Hagerman** performed VO2max tests using gas analysis on many subjects.

    . . . .

    Dr. Hagerman advises that we lose about 1% of our maximal sea level aerobic capacity for every thousand feet of ascent above 5000 ft. But it is important to understand that generalities or predictions of successful acclimatization to altitude is dangerous.

    ** he's from Ohio State University

    Are you getting your VO2max numbers from a sports lab test, or something like a fitness tracker estimate or online calculator? How does your VO2max compare to age norms for men, do you know?

    I'm not sure what I should take away from the part I bolded in your post. What's your RPE in those workouts, or what percent of HRreserve or HRmax do you think you're at? That 2nd part - the up-drift - seems normal/expected, i.e., heart rate drifts up in a longer workout of steady intensity. Various things can make a given workout intensity register a higher HR at one time than another, too: Ambient temperature, hydration levels, more.

    FWIW: I've not done a sports lab test myself, though there's a university lab here and I've thought about it. My Garmin gives me an estimate of my walking VO2max, with an age-based comparison to other women. (That's estimated at 38, top 5% for my demographic.) Concept 2 (rowing machine manufacturer) also has an estimator, but one needs to indicate training level. That one estimates me at anywhere from 27.59 (if highly trained, which would be "average" VO2max for my age+F) to 37.93 (if not highly trained, which would be "excellent") - and that based on a 2k test that wasn't all that recent - so who the heck knows. (I expect I'm somewhere in between, WRT training level; and since I'm not doing structured training anymore plus I'm now older, I'm sure my max 2k pace is slower anyway.)

    From my coaching education, my understanding is that occasional (once or twice a week) but relatively short, very high intensity cardiovascular exercise (like 90-95% HRmax, SS or interval format) is a way to sharpen VO2max before a race or similar. This part is speculation, but I'd expect relatively pure CV exercise to be more effective for this, or at least one's target exercise "done harder", vs. adding an explicit resistance component to make it harder: I'm thinking that a (new or increased) strength component muddies the waters about why HR is increasing, i.e. oxygen demand vs. one of the stress/strain kinds of reasons. IOW, when it's said that HIIT is a good modality for increase VO2max, I'd take that to mean classic CV HIIT, not the modern strength/calisthenics circuit type HIIT.

    For sure, basing any of that training on HR ranges requires having a really good estimate (or better, tested measurement) of HRmax, since the age-based HRmax formulas are substantially off for a fair fraction of people, as I'm sure you know. (I'm 66, so the 220-age estimate would be 154, a number I can exceed while not feeling terrible. I haven't done a max test in a few years, but at that point HRmax was around 180, and my RPE at various HR intensities suggests that it may still be at least near that. If it is, 154bpm would be around 80% HRreserve, 86% HRmax. If I used that age estimate of HRmax to train, I'd be undertraining pretty severely.)

    IMU: Yes, HRmax tends to decline with age (hence the age formulas), but less so in people who've kept up training as they age (IMU one of the pitfalls of the age estimates that are based on broad population data).

    Also, as you mentioned, VO2max does tend to decline with age. I don't know whether that effect is countered by regular training in the way I understand HRmax to be.

    Myself, I didn't train when young, started training/competing in my late 40s, have kept up an OK-ish (I think) workout schedule since, but haven't done structured race training in quite a while. Garmin thinks I'm getting around 425-550ish "activity minutes" in recent weeks, and do something in that range most of a typical year nowadays. "Activity minutes" are their way of looking at the "150 minutes of moderate intensity or 75 minutes of vigorous intensity physical activity per week" concept. They double minutes spent when doing something they think is "vigorous" when they come up with the weekly number to compare to the 150 minute generic goal, essentially. I don't know my wall clock hours without compiling that data, but a recent fairly typical week was 155 minutes moderate, 190 minutes vigorous, in their scheme (so 155+(190*2)=535 "activity minutes" for the week).

    I don't really know how I should think about VO2max when not competing, personally. In one sense, these days a high VO2max plus 6 bucks would buy me a large latte, y'know? In my sport, athletes work on a range of intensities (aerobic, anaerobic threshold, lactate tolerance, blah blah blah) in a varying periodized mix through the year, with super high intensity more minimal most of the year (though the other intensities make some contribution to VO2max, of course). I don't know anything about other sports. Mine is short-endurance, which is kind of a weird niche in the grand scheme. If I were training, I'd be following a structured plan, and be thinking more about pace than VO2max explicitly as races approached.

    I doubt that any of this helps with your question, but it's the ramble I've got. 🤣 You might want to post a thread in the Fitness and Exercise part of the Community to ask, where there are people lots more informed than I am . . . and also some as willing to talk through their hat as I am. 🙄 🤣


    Thanks, Ann, for the comprehensive answer! First, I haven ‘t been lab measured for VO2 Max or Max HR. For VO2 Max I’m using what my Apple Watch gives me from outdoor training sessions which is of course algorithm based and measured on outdoor walks which while typically vigorous aren’t near the level of my indoor workouts I do three or four times for each outdoor session. Apple tells me my recent VO2 Max is 40.8 which according to some sources is excellent, while others consider it merely high with excellent for my age bracket around 43. The altitude effect might mean I’m maybe effectively a point higher, maybe less. For HR Max I’m using the formula you reference which likely produces numbers lower than actual in my case. My max at age 65 by the standard formula would mean I’m working out at 94-98% of my max most of the time which I doubt.

    So first thing is I probably should get tested. Part of the reason I’m interested in this is pride of course :-) but also there’s research indicating mortality is lower the higher your VO2 Max. While my levels are probably good under any approach, if I’m going to work out as hard as I do, I’d like to have the numbers that would help satisfy my highly quantitative personality.

    I’ll give thought to posting a thread in Fitness & Exercise. My concern is my questions are fairly specific to us older folks. Either way I think it’s a good idea for me to get tested, hopefully somewhere that can shed light on the age effect. There are so many seniors in my area (Park City) that train seriously and compete, there are probably good local resources.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,288 Member
    Arc2Arc wrote: »

    (snip)

    So first thing is I probably should get tested. Part of the reason I’m interested in this is pride of course :-) but also there’s research indicating mortality is lower the higher your VO2 Max. While my levels are probably good under any approach, if I’m going to work out as hard as I do, I’d like to have the numbers that would help satisfy my highly quantitative personality.

    I’ll give thought to posting a thread in Fitness & Exercise. My concern is my questions are fairly specific to us older folks. Either way I think it’s a good idea for me to get tested, hopefully somewhere that can shed light on the age effect. There are so many seniors in my area (Park City) that train seriously and compete, there are probably good local resources.

    I suspect that the VO2max correlation with mortality is similar to the research correlations of longevity with things like grip strength, ability to do X squats to chair level in Y seconds, ability to get up off the floor without using hands (with points for various "better" ways to do it), and that sort of thing. People who stay strong and active have a higher VO2max than people who don't stay strong and active. People who stay strong and active live longer (statistically) than people who don't stay strong and active.

    I can't prove that with research cites, though. If you've seen the actual research studies about VO2max and mortality, you may know what confounders they adjusted for. I looked at some of the ones for the obviously dumb stuff (like grip strength). Yeah, no.

    I've never cared enough to look it up, but I also suspect the device's VO2max estimates - mine from Garmin, yours from Apple - use the subject's heart rate ranges as part of the estimation. If that's true - underscoring that I don't know if it is - then knowing your true HRmax, or at least something closer than the age estimate, could be helpful. For sure, a realistic HRmax estimate is helpful in setting HR-range training goals, for reasons that were probably clear from my PP.

    A couple of things about that.

    First, if you've ever looked at/thought about an RPE chart, that's probably a decent "sniff test" for whether your age-estimated HR ranges are close to realistic, or not. There are lots on the web with different scales and verbiage. This is one of the more concrete/specific ones I've seen:

    pbmbf3qzunmd.png

    This one doesn't guesstimate/correlate RPE with heart rates, but if you're at/near your age-estimated max, and you don't feel like you're at the top end of this scale, your actual max is probably higher.

    Second, there are lots of self-tests (or tests that can be done with an amateur helper outside a sports lab). It's not nearly as technical as a VO2max test, which requires actual sports-lab equipment. You would want one that's specific to your most practiced CV sport/activity. There are ones that try to take you to true maximum, there are ones that are submaximal and try to project max.

    No one who is not well trained - i.e., quite fit - should be doing any of these self tests. Probably no one in our age group should be doing the true-max ones without a chat with their doctor first, besides.

    You can find these tests on the web that rely on lot of the major CV sports (running, cycling, etc.). I'll leave that research to you, since I don't know your sport, and I don't know much about sports other than mine. As an aside, I know the bike people seem to do things with FTP (functional threshold power) as a training guide, and test for that in specific ways, vs. using heart rate in the way I learned to do with rowing.

    Just to be semi-illustrative, I'll describe the rowing-type HR test I did.

    Some years back - so long I've forgotten exact details - our rowing coach tested us. The idea was that we would get on rowing machines, wearing a HR monitor chest belt, with the watch display pinned to our back. We would then start rowing at a given pace (that had been picked as a starting pace suitable to the group's age/fitness). Every X period of time, we were told to go at faster pace. (I forget, I maybe it was every 30 seconds or 1 minute we were to go at a pace that was 5 seconds faster per 500 meters, or something like that. Time per 500 meters is the standard rowing split.) Every 15 seconds, another person who was behind us would note the pace and the HR that was on the watch. We were to keep going, and keep going progressively faster as directed, until we couldn't hold the new higher pace for 5 strokes. Our coach charted the HR numbers vs. pace/time to estimate our HR max (from the shape of the curve, which flattens out - not very arcane analysis).

    If I said that test was intense, that would be an understatement. I did a medical stress test some time later (on a treadmill, which I'm bad at), and they stopped me when I got to around age-estimated max. At that point, my running performance was pretty bad, but subjectively I knew I had quite a bit of CV capacity left. The medical test was hard biomechanically (I don't run), but not very challenging CV-wise. I had enough breath left to argue with them while still running about whether it was time to stop the test, and that RPE chart gives a hint about what that means. 🤣
  • Arc2Arc
    Arc2Arc Posts: 484 Member
    ^^^ Thanks Ann for your very comprehensive response, this gives me a lot for follow-up. The research I saw suggested the higher VO2 Max, the lower the mortality, as opposed to there being some threshold followed by diminishing returns. I’d like to get involved in this in a more sophisticated way. After all I feel as though I’m putting in the work and want it to be well focused. I’m going to proceed with finding VO2 Max measurement options keeping in mind what you’ve laid out. Thanks again!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,288 Member
    With apologies to others for continuing this pretty-technical sub-thread (that you absolutely should skip over if not interested):
    Arc2Arc wrote: »
    ^^^ Thanks Ann for your very comprehensive response, this gives me a lot for follow-up. The research I saw suggested the higher VO2 Max, the lower the mortality, as opposed to there being some threshold followed by diminishing returns. I’d like to get involved in this in a more sophisticated way. After all I feel as though I’m putting in the work and want it to be well focused. I’m going to proceed with finding VO2 Max measurement options keeping in mind what you’ve laid out. Thanks again!

    I'm not suggesting a diminishing return effect.

    What I'm really asking is: In the research you've read, did they match people with higher and lower VO2max to control for how active they were, how strong they were, how long they'd been training, quality of eating regimen, lifelong smoking/alcohol/drug intake, and that sort of thing?

    There are a cluster of characteristics that are common in people who are highly active, both on the actions side, and the outcomes side. Unless you compare people with similar athletic/training history, outcomes like "high grip strength correlates with longevity" (or any other one test result correlates with longevity) aren't really providing much insight, IMO. They just instantiate that people who are healthy live longer, which isn't exactly startling.

    If I were you, I'd chase finding out HRmax first. It's easier to figure out, and you can better focus training on improving VO2max if you know what HRmax is, IMO. But sure, a baseline VO2max test could be interesting. I think knowing HRmax provide more actionable info toward your goals in the short run, though. Just my opinion, and I've got a bunch of 'em. 🤣

    For me, my aerobic base volume seems to affect Garmin's estimate of my VO2max, as does activity-specific practice of the activity they use for estimation. (IOW, if I walk lots more, my walking VO2max improves. If I do a bunch of moderate non-walking CV volume after not doing nearly as much - very common in my Winter to Spring transition - Garmin's walking VO2max estimate for me improves.)

    In theory, without getting elaborate, some high intensity CV exercise in the mix - maybe once a week? - should sharpen VO2max. I don't have data-based personal observations about that, because I don't do a lot of truly high intensity work anymore, and what I do of it isn't in a structured, routine plan that I'd expect to yield a result.

    I'm talking something like classic Tabata intervals: Warm up 5 minutes or so. Repeat the following 8 times: 20 seconds at absolute maximum effort (important), 10 seconds easy. Cool down 5 minutes or so. Yup, a four minute workout. It should feel pretty exhausting. I'd say don't do much else exercise-wise the same day, certainly nothing above low-aerobic, and don't do the high intensity work every day: Intensity is a side dish, not a main meal. The recovery is where the magic happens.

    Other extreme high intensity but short workouts should also have a similar effect: Max-effort hill repeats for runners or cyclists, for example. When I was doing high intensity work, it was rowing machine, because I can focus entirely on max effort without much distraction onto stuff like technique, steering, etc., that I'd have to worry about on the water.

    This work needs to be at 90-95% of your HRmax. That's why I'm saying knowing your actual HRmax (or close) is important. If I worked at 90-95% of my age estimated max (154bpm), I'd be working at around 138-146bpm, which is only around 75-80% actual HRmax. I wouldn't get the desired training effect for pursuing VO2max improvement, not even close. I need to be at 162bpm, minimum. (But the workouts tend not to be ones where you monitor HR in real time, for various technical reasons I could explain but won't belabor: Instead, these workouts are done as pure maximum effort.)

    No one should do any of that kind of thing (IMO and the opinion of others smarter than me) without a sound aerobic base, or without doctor buy-in.
  • BCLadybug888
    BCLadybug888 Posts: 663 Member
    edited September 1
    I think sometimes using the spoiler feature is useful for really long posts, easier to skip over but easy to open up to read fully too.
    for content you want to collapse, just type the word spoiler to begin and /spoiler to end, both times putting the word inside square [brackets] and then type the hidden content in between

    If you're not sure what this means, you can see an example by using the "quote" function and in the draft the system creates look at the format of how the word quote starts and /quote ends the selection.

    Just a suggestion to not overpower the thread but still provide a very detailed (and valuable) response. 🥰
  • BCLadybug888
    BCLadybug888 Posts: 663 Member
    Hope everyone is enjoying the last few weeks of Summer, we had another mini heatwave where I am but since it cools off better at night, so much more enjoyable!
  • ridiculous59
    ridiculous59 Posts: 2,526 Member
    edited September 1
    @BCLadybug888 So I tried to figure out how to use the spoiler feature without any luck (2 // at start and finish?). How do you do it?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,288 Member
    I think sometimes using the spoiler feature is useful for really long posts, easier to skip over but easy to open up to read fully too.
    for content you want to collapse, just type the word spoiler to begin and /spoiler to end, both times putting the word inside square [brackets] and then type the hidden content in between

    If you're not sure what this means, you can see an example by using the "quote" function and in the draft the system creates look at the format of how the word quote starts and /quote ends the selection.

    Just a suggestion to not overpower the thread but still provide a very detailed (and valuable) response. 🥰

    Good point. Apologies!
  • Arc2Arc
    Arc2Arc Posts: 484 Member
    Thanks again @AnnPT77 . Rather than keep this going here, I’ll pursue max HR testing and perhaps start a separate thread.
  • RetiredAndLovingIt
    RetiredAndLovingIt Posts: 1,360 Member
    edited September 2
    @ridiculous59 to use spoiler, put a [ then write spoiler with a ] behind it. At the end of your post do the same, except put a / right before the word spoiler within the bracket.
  • kyungs
    kyungs Posts: 66 Member
    edited September 2
    Testing
    testing only
    Nothing to see here.

    @BCLadybug888 @RetiredAndLovingIt Thank you for the very useful tip!
    @ridiculous59 to start the spoiler, type the following WITHOUT the periods. .[.spoiler.] now type your spoiler text then to end your spoiler, type .[./.spoiler.]. (without the periods)