gdyment Member

Next run try and keep that HR below 140. If that means slow jog, so be it. But go for 3 miles (it's so slow and easy you'll think, 3 miles should be cake, right)? 8 miles @ 124 today - low hr doesn't mean no work. Don't feel guilty or that you're "not working".

More likely over-reaching - race day pumps you up and you push too hard on the hills if you're not used to it. Pretty hard to deplete electrolytes in under 2 hrs unless you drank like 4L of water too.

I don't bring a thing for sprint or super other than a few splashes of water that they have on course. Unless you're out there for 2+ hrs? I assume you're talking gut cramp vs some sort of leg cramps.

Well at some point you DO have inferior performance at a lower weight. Even in runners. And there's no way to tell except lose, race, see if faster, lose more, race, see if faster, etc. But generally you would have a deficit in the pre-season/off-season to get close to race weight 12-16 weeks out then NOT have a deficit…

Try breathing naturally instead of in time with your step (often will give you a cramp/stitch). You can force yourself to do this by quietly singing happy birthday or something to yourself. If you can't do it, you're going too fast. Don't race for "best time" very often just work on getting it done more and more…

4-5 days of running, with 1 weights on one of the easy run days. Run a slight deficit but nothing crazy.

We had a few new obstacles today including the Stairway to Sparta. The rope on the spear screwed me up this year - I got the range right this time but was an inch off to the right. :(

I said it was deceptive and misleading, and you should know better. Keep adding hours to one side until you get the sound-bite comparison you want. The true "big picture" is the person who did the 2 hr hike is going to get an extra ~1500 cals to eat or put towards weight loss over your sleeper. Trying to spin it so it…

But you can't just ignore time. This is what you're doing - "A pickup truck uses 30L of gas in 1 hour, the smart car uses 40L of gas in 5 hrs, therefore the Smart car burns more gas". Well yes, that's technically true but it's completely misleading. Especially if you sprout the conclusion out of context "Smart cars use…

I know he's saying that and it's misleading. Which is bigger, 100 or 60? Now which is bigger, 100% of 100 cals or 60% of 800 cals? Saying 100 is bigger than 60 is true but completely wrong in context. If you want to use the Hybrid analogy you have to reverse it (and it still isn't great). Glycogen is your limited 1 hr…

Ok let's get back to specifics - are you saying that someone will burn MORE FAT resting on the couch for 2 hrs rather than going for a 2 hr hike/long run? (Both people will sleep at night so that's a wash). There is no case where someone gets to pick between a 2 hrs activity OR an 8 hr sleep. Secondly, are you saying that…

Really? So if my body holds about 1500 cals of glycogen, and I attempt to do an Ironman in 11 hours, I should just keel over and pass out/die at the 90 min mark, unless I eat 7000 calories? The body absolutely consumes FAT and Glycogen (and muscle) in a ratio depending on the intensity. Fat holds more energy/calories and…

I have a 920XT but more for running/biking. It's not really an activity monitory beyond a step counter. You could also look at the Fenix 3 or even get a Fenix 2 on a STEAL of a deal. They still list for 400+ but because of the new models they sell for 200 or less used. If you're a serious rower the activity tracking isn't…

Run lots. Nothing will prepare you better.

Your hydration level alone can muck it up by 20-30%. A dunk requires a complete exhale which most people cannot do consistently (they always retain a variable amount of air in their lungs, which floats). This study did Dexa scans over 3 days on a group and there was body fat variance 3-5% based on their carb/water load:…

If you really have pf full recovery is a year no running. Start early the counter starts over. Get checked out.

Right but you're bashing the BMI which is a valid simple metric, instead of bashing the companies that are using it incorrectly as some sort of absolute guide line. It should be - if you are over X BMI you get more test/medical whatever. None of our insurance companies or corporate wellness plans use BMI in that manner.…

Where are you getting your body fat numbers that you're so confident in them? I'm 5'7" and even under 150 I wouldn't say I was much under 10%. 146-150 at 5'7 or 5'8 is pretty lean. 180 should be looking like Arnold.

BMI is a SCREEN. Like a cancer screen. It quickly eliminates people you don't need to look at so you can concentrate on those who might. The point of a screen is to guarantee that you catch all the bad things, and a few good things vs letting some bad things slip through. IF you are underweight, or normal on the BMI chart,…

How much do you weight in kg? If you weigh 80kg, give yourself 80 calories every km you cover. That will be close enough for the near future and no gadgets required.

Run/Walk is a great stepping stone to running the whole distance. If you already are doing 16km then I'd go for it.

All methods (including calipers, dexa, dunk tank) suck for absolute repeatable numbers. But they are good for relative change. If your bf % is going down, great. Just try and measure under the same conditions (dry, morning, whatever). Don't worry if it's 20 or 25. Just lower than two weeks ago. And BMI, as a screen, is…

Lower body fat - your choice how to get there.

I'd feel confident using the HRM + a little bit.

My point was the HR being not that critical - 117 hr vs 142 hr for the same time. 437-546 - advantage is obviously you get more done in the time. If I'd been walking, it might be 350 cals - so I'd have to go a bit longer, but could still hit the 500 or whatever. You said that you burn "barely any calories" with your HR…

That's the point - you're confusing the aerobic/heart rate stuff with the actual "work" of moving your body from point A to point B. Run: 39:19 - 8.09km - HR: 142 - Calories: 546 Run: 39:31 - 7.26km - HR: 117 - Calories: 437 There IS a difference but it's not huge. Getting the job done is more important.

It is the case for the most part. If you walk the 5k one day, and run it the next, you might have 10-20% more cals burnt in afterburn/epoc (so an extra small bag of cheezies) but you have to balance the convenience of getting your workout done in less time vs the recovery time. Ie, if you do your 7-8mph strides in 2-3 min…

I do both and swimming is tougher to gauge your actual burn. Typically it's much LESS than running because the water is supporting all your weight. You can leisurely swim for an hour and burn virtually the same as sitting on the couch. Same with a bike. You can loaf along on a flat path at 10mph and accomplish nothing. So…

The athena/clyde was originally made for taller athletes who had no hope of competing with the ideal smaller racers (think 5"6' Kenyans). Then it sort of migrated into the group that overweight people fell into. And yes, for a typical competitive long distance female runner, 140 would be off the chart. Edit: It's actually…

For swimming, I found it UNDER estimates me, because I'm not very fast yet the effort is high. I will bang out 2000m and it will say "slow leisurely relaxing lazy swimming, you get 100 cals". So I've been using the 25cal/100m (that's 100 cals every 16 lengths) ratio which seems to be pretty good for most people. If you're…