In fact, lactic acid may not be "bad" exactly. It's partly a muscle fuel.
Did the book tell you that you have osteoarthritis in your lower back or did that just fall out of the blue?
Out of the blue.
But the book tells me that exercise makes virtually every aspect of your life better, so I'm going to assume that's what will cure me.
It usually hits older people, not that it is exactly rare in those under forty. My dad was just diagnosed with it a few weeks ago.
4: exercise makes virtually every aspect of your life better
Not the part where I don't have to move around if I don't want to.
There was a super fascinating chapter where they talk about what very little is known about different genetic predispositions. The drive to exercise or not is inherited to some extent. Things like how people respond to fatigue and how two equally-fit people can find the same amount of exercise more or less tiring and unpleasant.
Also about how, in all of these studies, they consistently find that a small portion of the population just don't respond at all to exercise. Like they just don't get the health/endurance/fitness/strength benefits from regular exercise. (And on the opposite end, some people get inordinately much positive effect from their workout.)
re: 8
Definitely a big part of it for me. I quite enjoy some exercise [although I'm temperamentally lazy], and I'd do more martial arts stuff than I currently, and more related conditioning type things too if I could get a handle on the joint pain.*
* ultimately more exercise is probably the cure for that, too, but it's a bit catch-22.
Does the book include any magic tips for getting over back injuries?
I'm at the "quasi-normal but still have to watch my step and not re-aggravate things" stage.
I'm wondering at what point I should start exercises (other than just moving around normally) to speed things along.
More exercise isn't always the cure for joint pain. Joints are wearing parts, some components of which cannot really heal (cartilage). Adding muscle can compensate for some, but not all, issues with joints. If you have one bone rubbing directly against another bone, you aren't going to fix that by exercise.
8: Not all of it. I hated exercise as a kid and had no joint pain whatsoever (just pain in my lungs and a sense of extreme fatigue in my muscles).
It's OK now, because
a) Nobody's making me do things that are significantly beyond what I can do without hurting, or scolding me for falling behind.
b) Some weight training (much less unpleasant than aerobics at the time) in high school helped me get strong enough that ordinary physical activity was not terribly unpleasant. People who haven't crossed the sufficient-fitness threshold have that catch-22 ttaM mentioned; exercise is painful, but the only way to make it not painful is to become more fit.
11: Not a whole lot. Basically let pain be your guide, and it's good to exercise if you can figure out a way to do it that doesn't feel like you're aggravating things.
My guess would be not osteoarthritis, but probably a weak core (just because you're a woman with young children who has a sedentary job.)
In my experience, the cure for joint pain is always strengthening whatever muscle needs to be strengthened to fix it, but I know this due to working with a sports doc and knowing that (for now, at least) there's no cartilage damage. My connective tissue is apparently made of noodles, so for me staying strong is key to injury prevention. (I joke that I need the opposite of mobility drills.)
I'll have to read what the book says about massage, but I know that foam rolling (i.e. cheap ass massage) appears to work for me for reducing stiffness and/or little tweaks.
You roll on foam? Use a foam roller? I don't get this. I'm picturing an automated foam rolling pin thing.
Not automated, but basically a foam rolling pin. It's firm, not squishy, and you roll your muscles over it.
I think I have decent core strength.
It's hooked to the wall or something?
18: Ask a student to punch you in the gut and see if it hurt.
19: It's a hard foam cylinder, and you roll different parts of your body over it, on the floor.
18: But you just started a fairly high-intensity exercise regimen, too. (I can say "imbalance" instead of "weakness" if it doesn't seem as negative. Still the same problem.) Osteoarthritis is pretty easy to diagnose, though, so a visit to a sports doc would be your best bet.
I suppose I should visit a gym and see what people get up to these days. But, mostly I like running because it doesn't involve a gym or other people.
ce baths don't help with sore muscles or improved performance, either. The only intervention they've been able to show consistently improves performance is to take a day of rest here and there.
Hot baths, not ice cold ones. I've found in the past that if I immediately take a hot bath after a really long bike ride, the soreness is significantly reduced. For maximum effectiveness I keep moving vigorously until the bath is ready. Saunas seem to have the same effect.
I've never been in any genuine training regime but every time I've needed to quickly get into shape, I've always included rest days into my plan. Doesn't everyone?
Osteoarthritis is pretty easy to diagnose
Depends on how early it is and what type of image you have to look at.
How early in the course of the disease, not how early in the day or anything.
I always thought it was a hot soak, too. But apparently there's a current fad to take an ice bath after exercising, for seriously intense athletes. Like some professional athletes go in a cryotherapy chamber, at -166 Fahrenheit.
Justin Gatlin, an American sprinter, neglected that last precaution [to wear dry socks] before the 2011 track and field World Championships; his socks were sweaty from a previous workout and froze instantly to his feet. He arrived at the championships with frostbite and did not make the finals of the 100-meter dash.
I don't know why she didn't discuss saunas and hot soaks.
It sounds like loosely, a lot of traditional exercise science has been taking what you do for injuries - reduce the inflammation by putting ice on it, take two ibuprofen, etc - and assuming that you should do those things after a brutal workout, but you really shouldn't.
Althought I don't think I'd have made my 1/2 marathon without my sister running with me.
Together, you wouldn't have made a marathon.
Topically, I am cautiously optimistic I have figured out how to run while avoiding severe knee or achilles tendon pain. If I'm right, the secret is to look like a total goober while running.
Why don't you try looking like a total goober all the time, just incase.
I still get achilles tendon pain. I still run a bit when I have it, but not far.
If anyone running down the sidewalk thinks that they don't look like a total goober already, they're likely pretty deluded.
Those weird gazelle-like people excluded, but they don't make up a very large proportion of the people you see running.
It's hard to see them because they're so fast.
It's always embarassing when someone pronks passed you like you're not even moving.
Is this the "you should never sit for more than 20 minutes without standing for two minutes" author?
I doubt Heebie has a particularly weak core, but I'd guess mobility stuff before arthritis. Have you ever done Yoga/obligatory mobilityWOD.com reference?
I remember being as a teen horribly embarrassed by the thought of people seeing me running. Now people running, however slowly, just look like I dunno, runners? It's kind of hard to remember why it all seemed embarrassing.
I think I could say that about any number of things. I would have been mortified to carry toilet paper down the street as a teenager, whereas now I get the big Scott 12-pack and walk home with it under my arm-- no bag, even!
Being a teenager is an excruciating condition. At times, at least.
It helps if your mom lets you buy the nice TP.
Is this the "you should never sit for more than 20 minutes without standing for two minutes" author?
While I'm all in favor of keeping up a generally healthy lifestyle diet and exercise -wise, these kind of lifestyle micromanagement reports/recommendations always seem obnoxious to me.
"Recent studies find that sitting down for no less than 15 and no more than 20 minutes at a time correlates with morbid health condition X with of p-value of 0.07. Meanwhile getting more than 6 but fewer than 8.2 hours of sleep per night correlates with increased life expectancy with a p-value of..."
I wonder if the stress of trying to manage every picayune aspect of your life to conform to the latest suggestions readily outweighs any supposed benefits.
Running down the street carrying toilet paper is still a little embarrassing, though.
Striding manfully across the office carrying toilet paper and a newspaper is great.
It's when you put the paper back on the reception desk that the funny looks start.
Topically: My resting pulse rate is 56. I'm not sure if that makes up being overweight with bad lipids.
Well, is it a steady 56, or does it get that low by including some long pauses? Because the latter, I'd worry about.
A steady 56. It's about 60 when I'm digesting.
13: People who haven't crossed the sufficient-fitness threshold have that catch-22 ttaM mentioned; exercise is painful, but the only way to make it not painful is to become more fit.
I actually talked Newt into training for a 5K with me on that basis. I remember being an out of shape kid, and how horrifically it sucked getting in shape the first time I ever did (college, rowing). Sally's an athlete, but Newt much less so (he plays soccer in the fall, but in a very very very low key rec league, with very little practice time), and I figured if I can ease his way up to where he can run three miles comfortably, he'll have a much easier, pleasanter time doing anything else athletic in future.
We're about 2/3 of the way through a Couch-to-5K plan. He's talking big about moving on to training for a 10K, then a half-marathon, then a marathon, but we'll take that as it comes.
Let's all post our resting heart rates. Mine's 66.
47: but I'm trying to avoid injury.
I haven't checked lately, but 72. It's always 72. If I'm in tiptop shape, and have been biking ~75-100 miles a week for months, it's 72. If I've been crouched motionless at my desk for six months eating donuts, it's 72. Annoys the crap out of me.
Is resting heart rate very informative? I thought it naturally dropped as you got older.
I thought lower meant fitter (although also that it went with being a larger person). I'm always thinking "I'm in really good shape for me right now, I bet my heart rate's dropped." But no. 72. Always 72.
My dad's is about 23 bpm - skinny, late 60s, exercises fanatically, and has a wonky beat that drops every third beat. At some point he was talking about getting a pace-maker (maybe external? if such a thing exists?) to moniter his heartbeat and make sure it wasn't missing more than he realized.
23 is weird. Are you sure that's what you meant?
57: I believe current thinking is that the s peed of recovery to the resting rate is what actually matters, not the resting rate.
59: He is seeing somebody about that, right?
23 is insanity. Even bikers like Armstrong have a resting bpm in the low 30's.
He's a doctor, so I know he's chatted about it to his colleagues, but I don't know if he's formerly seen someone. I just emailed him to verify that I had the story straight. Maybe I'm way off.
It was something where if you added 1/3 of it back in, you got something that was definitely fairly low. Maybe I'm off by 10, though.
I think with resting heart rates there's a pretty wide range of what's healthy, and it matters more whether your heart rate has changed and how fast it returns to resting or close to it. I have no idea what mine is -- mid-60s, I think, last I checked,. No idea if it responds to exercise (blood pressure does dramatically.)
I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into this story or not, but I'm taking it as a sign to have General Tso's for lunch.
Wow, talk about false dichotomies. From the link in 68:
most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health
The first rule of the diet Gary Taubes recommends is that you have to eat 2 cups of leaves every day. For me, going low-carb has mostly meant replacing starches with greens, rather than eating mountains of meat.
I agree with 69.
Also, my head nearly explodes every time I hear a "deep down, we know" argument. If that's your ultimate criterion, why the hell are we spending all this money on expensive scientific research?
If anecdotal evidence and how your body feels trumps peer-reviewed statistically valid studies, then you should just come out and say that instead of pretending you're interested in finding things out with science.
The point of doing science is that deep down, we don't know, we have to find out by looking.
Alternately, I enjoy the taste of cookies, so they must be good for me!
has mostly meant replacing starches with greens, rather than eating mountains of meat.
Why choose! But, yes, that is an incredibly tendentious piece and doesn't actually discuss (a) weight loss or (b) the overhyped science of cholestorol.
Speaking of fitness and such, I was looking at the Fitbit website last night. A friend of mine recently got one, and I was trying to figure out what the hell the thing does. On their features page, the graphic next to "Log workouts and meals," a little over 3/4 of the way down the page, is quite astonishing. I guess Fitbit lets you track your anorexia?
The abstract linked from the piece doesn't seem to support all of the claims in the article.
74: You eat more than 80 calories at lunch? How uncouth. I always know I'm looking at someone with a shamefully uncontrolled appetite if they're eating a whole apple, rather than a carefully calibrated 4/5 of one.
Why choose!
When we're talking mesclun mix or whatever wimpy stuff, then sure, but by the time I eat a cup and a half* of raw kale, I don't have that much room for a mountain of meat.
*The amount held by the big container in my bento-style lunchbox.
You eat more than 80 calories at lunch?
Only on days when I'm going on a four-hour run after lunch, of course!
Incidently, I've found that kale chips were greatly oversold by the Unfoggedariat.
73: Well, if you don't already know in your heart that low cholesterol levels are good, try praying on it.
If you're interested in getting more into the cholestorol/refined carbs debate. Anyhow, just saying that a low-carb diet increased cholestorol levels is not going to persuade people on the other side of this debate.
The only two ways ever I've managed to loose any significant number of pounds are low carb diets, and speed. I'm thinking it might be healthier just to be overweight.
Kale chips are super awesome, but only the homemade ones. The store-bought ones (which I almost never buy, but the ones I've tried) are horrendous.
81: You're so fixated on "evidence." Just listen to what your body's telling you - unless it disagrees with me.
84: Good to hear that I've been correctly avoiding those awful-looking kale chips in stores.
What other things I've never tried are overrated?
Hmm, these were bought at a vegan restaurant. If they're straight out of the oven, is eating them less like eating dried, mildly-seasoned leaves?
88: Oh, you don't like those? Then kale chips probably aren't for you.
11: Has anyone mentioned to AcademicLurker, regarding the back pain, that a physical therapist can be of tremendous help? If not, I do: he or she will be able to outline and demonstrate what kinds of exercises are safe and helpful.
After a cup and a half of raw kale I think I'd despair.
88: Not sure. I'd try making them, though, if they're the sort of thing you're interested in at all. Brassicas have a very tasty flavor when they're a little browned, and that's what kale chips are -- browned cabbage and salt in a delicately crunchy chip. Maybe the restaurant ones just sucked.
"Log workouts and meals," a little over 3/4 of the way down the page, is quite astonishing
I'm more curious about the workout she's doing. What kinda workout burns more than 2000 kcals yet leaves her hair so neatly held back?
Why the fuck is she holding little tiny pink weights?
There's only 40 calories in each of them. That's a healthy lunch right there.
Because, with her 80 calorie total per meal diet, that is the 1 rep max weight she can hold.
Why, its almost as if they used stock photography instead of pictures of people who have really been using the product!
93: If the log workout is more than 2,000 kcals, then the workout is more than exp(2000)=4*10^868
That's a lot of kcals
Maybe she's burning calories through blood loss [not pictured]?
Wait, also, check out this phrasing: "Unlike bulky, awkward devices that all but scream, 'Look at me, I'm on a diet,' the Fitbit Tracker is light and small enough to wear all day without anyone knowing." Does this explain my coworker with the propeller-helmet rigged to a vibrating belt and a loudspeaker on a loop barking "KEEP MOVING FATTY"?
After a cup and a half of raw kale I think I'd despair.
It's that much when I pack my lunch in the morning. I put the dressing on then, and by lunchtime, after sitting in oil for several hours, it's gotten smaller and less tough.
I find kale chips pretty tasty, but we gobble up a whole batch in a matter of minutes. The prep to time-enjoying-eating ratio is too high for me to make them very often.
That's true. I'm the only one in the family who likes them much, so I feel kind of silly washing, tearing up, tossing with a little oil and toasting a couple of pounds of kale, and then eating it all absentmindedly in a couple of minutes. Man, if I lived alone, though, I would be so healthy.
light and small enough to wear all day without anyone knowing
This sounds like ad copy for feminine hygeine products.
I think I expected a more satisfying crunch.
@90
I'm definitely planning on seeing a physical therapist.
Especially if my special back improving all kale diet doesn't produce results soon.
Hopefully it doesn't produce kidney stones.
I find it really hard, cooking for myself (and without much money), to eat enough fruits and vegetables. (Though my main problem continues to be eating vast quantities of ice cream.) My latest attempt involves regularly adding an avocado to my breakfast egg & sausage thing, or sometimes just eating one alone, but otherwise I'm sort of at a loss. Sigh.
107 -- Olive oil into a pan. Collard Greens (which are cheaper) or Kale cut or torn sloppily into the pan. Saute collards or kale in olive oil for about 6 minutes. Can serve as the base for just about anything and requires no great expenditure or cooking skills -- these greens also seem to last longer in the fridge than lettuce.
Is the recipe for kale chips on the food wiki? Or can someone point me to it? I never got around to making them, but I'm getting more adventurous cooking-wise.
108.last: Right. Never store your greens in lettuce.
Swiss chard also works the same way.
108 sounds helpful, but ... so, uh, then I just eat them? What's the simplest thing that results from using them as a base?
109: It's not even a recipe. Wash/dry/tear up kale. Toss it with just a little oil, enough so it's all kind of shiny all over, and some salt. Spread it in one layer on a cookie sheet, and bake for a while at 400 -- maybe 15 min? Until you pick a bit up and it's crunchy.
113 -- Among cheap things, you can put eggs on top of them, or sausage. Or bacon, or whatever; some kind of filling protein is good. Plenty tasty on their own, too.
107: Washed and trimmed kale or collards will keep in the fridge for a good week, so you can cut it up and then grab a single serving handful whenever you need it.
Until you pick a bit up and it's crunchycrumbly.
Right -- it's not potato-chip crunchy, it's dead-leaf crunchy.
dead-leaf crunchy
Sounds delicious!
Another good way to get more vegetables into your diet (within even needing to cook) is baby carrots. Just buy a bag and snack on them.
113: If you throw in some chopped onion and red bell pepper before you put the greens in, it's sweeter and richer tasting.
Also, if you buy a can of coconut milk, a whole lot of spinach, fresh or frozen, cooked slowly with any Indian spices that make sense to you, is very good. Throw in some cooked (or canned, rinsed) chickpeas, and that's dinner.
120: I work with a woman who is going to turn orange from eating those.
baby carrots. Just buy a bag and snack on them.
I've got to say, I don't see the appeal of baby carrots over whole carrots. I see the appeal of buying them washed and ready to snack on, but for some reason I find those little orange fingers gross.
any Indian spices that make sense to you,
Like what?
The texture and taste are almost never woody, like large carrots can sometimes be.
They always seem dried out to me. I like whole carrots much better.
Grated carrots with some nuts, chopped apple, raisins, chopped celery, dressed with a little lemon or lime juice and oil, or some mayo depending on what you like, is a pleasant, filling salad.
Smearcase and I had some delicious kale Caesar salad the other day.
In fitness news, I bike commuted most of LB's route this morning. (I get to skip the Hill of Doom.) It's such a nice morning ride. The security guards got all flummoxed at my bringing my bike into the building, though, even though my name is on a special list so I can do so. They were also suspicious of the bike tools in my bag.
124: This is where I admit that I suck. I use 'Curry Powder'. But a real cook would have opinions about a particular combination of cumin, tumeric, coriander, or whatever.
124: Cumin, coriander, cardamom, star anise, garam masala, etc!
123, 125, 126: There are actual "baby carrots" and regular carrots shaved into small shapes called "baby-cut carrots." Perhaps you are talking about different things.
There are actual "baby carrots" and regular carrots shaved into small shapes called "baby-cut carrots."
My understanding is that the things sold in bags as "baby carrots" are always the latter.
You live in a frozen waste without produce.
I think carrots are among the few crops that actually can be grown up here, actually.
What about those giant ass cabbages from Alaska?
Even in the temperate zone, something that's prewashed in a bag is IME always baby-cut. Little new whole carrots are really nice, but they don't come prewashed in bags.
Teo!!!
I think I might be one of those people that get no benefit from exercise. Then again, I do build muscle, so I think I just have to grin and bear the dislike of doing it until it gets to the point that I'm like, hey, cool, my body can do that!
What about those giant ass cabbages from Alaska?
I hear they're pretty impressive. It's still early in the growing season, but I'll keep an eye out for them later in the summer.
Whole Foods has the pre-washed bags of new carrots. They are small bags.
142: Well, sure, if you want to shop at that union-busting hellhole.
The place with the union has shitty carrots.
Thanks, everyone. I think I'll be going to TJ's today, so I'll keep that all in mind. And maybe this Saturday I'll finally go to the big farmer's market, which I just learned has some special discount for using foodstamps.
has some special discount for using foodstamps.
Sweet! We were off food stamps by the time the local farmers markets got their shit together to take Access cards. I'm not sure they intended to give a discount on top of it.
147: Now that I look at it, it's actually just a little "spend $10, get $15" bonus (rather than a constant % discount), but I'm apparently not the only one who'd show a big behavioral change from that $5 nudge. Interesting. And apparently you need to get special EBT tokens from the market manager first.
regular carrots shaved into small shapes called "baby-cut carrots."
I think I've said before that when I was at CalPoly, a guy in my ag engineering class was just fine-tuning his senior thesis, which was a machine to shave carrots down to baby-cut carrots. I thought it was the stupidest idea I'd ever heard of, since carrot sticks already existed and anyone with a carrot and peeler could make one, and predicted that it would go nowhere.
Every year he sends you and the rest of the class of picture of him on his boat, The Jaundiced Weiner.
Jaundiced Weiner is still available as a pseudonym, lurkers.
I was also offered a chance to invest in a small firm called "Google" but knew that the world obviously didn't need a new kind of search engine.
Not really, but only because I didn't go to Stanford, where I would have had the opportunity to be wrong about different kinds of inventions.
149 -- did he actually get rich, or did someone else beat him to the punch?
Don't know. He wasn't an acquaintance. I overheard professors discussing his senior project.
It looks like Wikipedia has the answer, which seems to be "not as rich as he should have been."
If only we knew a lawyer who protected semi-useful intellectual property.
Hmmm. Mr. Yurosek wasn't my classmate. I'd think I'd remember him. What did you search to lead to "not as rich as he should have been."?
I wasn't at CalPoly until ten years after Mr. Yurosek had sold some baby carrots to supermarkets. Perhaps the ag engineering student was just finessing some aspect of the baby-cut carrot machine.
Nevertheless, I stand by the part of the story where I had never heard of baby carrots and rejected the concept immediately.
I just looked at some news articles. It looks like Yurosek sold his company (which was already a pretty big carrot producer) to another company and did pretty well, but never patented baby carrots and so doesn't control ALL THE BABY CARROTS (for 20 years). And that there is now basically a baby carrot duopoly (the company to which Yurosek sold his company, and Bolthouse) in the US where two producers in Bakersfield control the entire market.
At least Bakersfield got its just punishment.
Baby carrots are fucking disgusting. Regular-size carrots are so much better that I can only assume the isolation in Alaska has driven teo mad.
Regular-size carrots are so much better that I can only assume the isolation in Alaska has driven teo mad.
A reasonable assumption, but I've preferred baby carrots since long before I moved here. They're not generally as good as regular carrots, true, but they're still pretty good, and you don't have to wash or peel them. You can just eat them straight out of the bag.
I find it really hard, cooking for myself (and without much money), to eat enough fruits and vegetables. (Though my main problem continues to be eating vast quantities of ice cream.)
Man do I have a weakness for ice cream. Have you tried yogurt shakes? Frozen blueberries or strawberries or whatever with greek yogurt and milk and a bit of sweetener are pretty good. Not ice cream good but sweet with kind of an ice creamy like texture.
That was breakfast Saturday -- a big bowl of local strawberries with plain yogurt and a little honey to take the edge off the yogurt. I'm salivating thinking about it. I should make pie crust this week, so I have it in the fridge for the weekend. Strawberry pie.
I'm not fond of any kind of raw carrot.
Various updates:
1. My dad's resting bpm is in the 30s, not the 20s.
2. I've got kale chips in the oven right this very minute, for the very first time.
3. It's either osteoarthritis or maybe just a crappy bed. Can a crappy bed really cause many problems?
(Everything I've mentioned eating in this thread has been incredibly healthy. I feel that I should make it clear that my actual diet consists largely of bratwurst, fried apples, and ice cream.)(I wish I were kidding.)
The SWPL-foodie self image round here is really misleading, isn't it? OMG CARROTS.
Blindingly obvious exercise tip of the week from me: stretch before you leap into the trainer-led abs workout, or your entire trunk will be riddled with twinges and stiffness all week. Stupid man does wrong thing.
169.3: Yes. Try sleeping in the guest room or on a mat on the floor and see if it doesn't feel better. Of course, a growing kid can cause back pain if she wants carried too much.
Why isn't this post titled Exerscience?
I find big carrots to have a 50% "OMG what is this horrible bitter thing in my mouth?" rate. While you get some bitter "baby" carrots as well, IME they average out to being sweeter, plus you just go on to the next one when you do get a bitter one.
The sliminess is a problem, but you just need to pay attention when you buy the bag.
AB would like to have kale chips more often, but oh my god are they labor intensive, at least relative to the reward.
I cook collards much more often than kale because kale is so fucking fussy, with all of that curly bullshit.
Last thing: in part goaded by previous comments here, I'm having more proteins & veg breakfasts. I do really like a fried egg atop a mound of lightly dressed baby spinach.
JRoth, have we discussed before whether you're a supertaster? So many of the things you specifically mention not liking are on the supertaster food sensitivity list.
Don't you know that you are a supertaster? And all the world will love you, just as long, as long as you laser.
Why isn't this post titled Exerscience?
I...I...should have.
165: You and everyone else in this state.
Anecdotal, but a non-crappy bed made a huge difference for shiv's various aches.
Baby carrots belong to the class of things which I buy regularly and toss a week later. (Also in this category are the Salad Greens of Aspiration, though I'm getting better about this. It's the aggressive version of Pollan: have a goddamned salad already.)
177: I don't think we have, but I guess I could be. Other than bitter flavors, I'm not sure that I'm so sensitive. I did successfully identify a wine as sauvignon blanc the other night, which felt like a triumph, but I don't think is very "super".
74: Do you think she really burnt 2154 calories waving those little red weights around? Her workout must have lasted six weeks.
Kudos to Good Morning, America, of all places, for offering a supertaster test that's not purely subjective/vague. And antikudos to BBC for starting their "test" with a question about what sort of restaurant ambience you prefer.
RE: the GMA test, I've certainly always been easily able to detect artificially-sweetened products (even as a kid). So yeah, maybe.
I do like dark chocolate, although I don't know that I'd choose it over richer, but less bitter, chocolate (it's hard to compare across types, since so much milk chocolate is garbage).
We're having 2 different salad-based meals this week (Caesar and Nicoise), plus yesterday's grilling featured potato salad with arugula. Adding greens has definitely been the easiest part of my ongoing transformation of our family diet. It helps, massively, that Iris loves baby spinach, and apparently raw kale as well, although I haven't witnessed this first hand and remain dubious.
In future I must carefully read the entire thread before commenting.
183: I don't think there's any food I hate more than tomato sauce that some dogfucker has dumped sugar into.
I have so many greens in my garden and so little certainty as to what kind each is.
Di, if the greens have a stalk-y part, saute them with salt, pepper, garlic.
If they don't, toss them raw with salad dressing.
No need to know what they are!
I just ate some baby carrots and Sabra hummus after riding up the Hill of Doom, which turns out to be a damn steep hill that I would prefer not to ride up ever again.
Spinach can go either way because it has a half-assed stalk.
189 is the precise approach I have been taking. And since they all seem to be self re-seeding, I should have years of mystery greens to come! The collards, at least, I am certain of...
We're having the kind of losing ground against critters summer in the garden that is quite discouraging (despite improved fencing--very annoying). However, the turnips are going great guns. But the taste of turnip greens is not something most of the family goes for (nor rabbits and groundhogs apparently). It's one of the rare cases where I like something "foodie" but the others not so much. Top tips for un-highlighting their taste?
I think I'm a supertaster and also consistently anemic and really averse to high-iron foods like spinach and red beef. Mara is probably an undertaster and Lee is a very middle-of-the-road meat-and-potatoes person. I should probably cut myself more slack about how it can be hard to find meals that work for all.
Oh man! I love turnip greens. But... what I would do is:
(a) Parboil them ahead of time -- bring a big pot of salted water to the boil, throw in the greens, wait two minutes, drain and press out excess moisture. Later, chop them up and...
(b) Make them into creamed spinach, only creamed turnip greens. Creamy cream makes everything tamer.
||
The dingo took the baby!
Holy crap. A fourth coroner's inquest just reached that conclusion. What in the hell would trigger yet another look 32 years later?
|>
I'm curious as to how Mara would describe taking a bite out of a raw onion. Like a sweet onion. Without smell, it might be like an apple.
I'll try to give her one. She's never really responded to onions, but she may well refuse because she's cranky about new foods/textures sometimes. I tried to get her to smell the horseradish I planted this weekend, which burned to smell, but she wouldn't comply.
It will be just like an apple that is made of concentric layers of apple.
taking a bite out of a raw onion. Like a sweet onion.
My grandmother used to eat onions like this on occasion, like an apple.
Right. You'd just pull it off your belt and eat it.
195: Thanks. I did check the archives as I recalled them being discussed here, and saw where various people including you had proclaimed them their favorite greens ever.
On the exercise front, had an interesting discussion over the Memorial Day weekend with the swim coach at my alma mater on current swim training practices. In particular, how much it has changed for sprinters (which I was) from the '70s which were the heyday of having *everyone* swim a gazillion yards/meters. Short, intense and focused for sprinters these days. Would have been much more to my liking (it is still sounds gut-wrenchingly tough, but then you go recover for a while).
36.2: Those weird gazelle-like people excluded, but they don't make up a very large proportion of the people you see running.
When I lived in California, the working title of one of my "daydreaming" books was Smith Smith Versus the Shadow Robots On Being a Thunder Lizard in an Age of Gazelles. (And yet I was 70 pounds lighter then than now...but still had relatively massive muscles and bones.)
Weirdly, happily? most of the regular kale (ie, curly, not Tuscan) sold in UK grocery stores comes pre-cut (But without the center rib removed, which does put a crimp in things), which makes kale chips vastly easier.
re: resting heart rate
Taking mine just using a watch sitting in front of the PC [rather than sitting quietly for a few minutes with a heart-rate monitor on] it's 68 this morning. Which (high 60s) sounds about normal for me. A couple of years ago when I was doing regular longer cardio sessions* (as opposed to the shorter interval based stuff I intermittently do now) it was under 60. As per other people's comments above, I'm not sure how important that really is.
* nothing fancy, just 45-60 min of speed walking.
If that's your ultimate criterion, why the hell are we spending all this money on expensive scientific research?
Because my deep down is better than your deep down.
146 and 147: In Boston hey double your money. $10 in foodstamps gets you $20 to spend, but most of the farmers' markets here seem expensive compared to the farm stands I used to go to in central New York.
gswift, do you add any protein powder to your smoothie?
Anecdotal, but a non-crappy bed made a huge difference for shiv's various aches.
Cala, what kind of bed did you guys get?
Do the workout-eteers here track their Maximum Heart Rate (nice discussion and calculators here)? I was feeling pretty good that doing elliptical fartleks I was getting mine into the 150s on the sprint portions (hammering very hard with intense concentration). From that site my "max"would be high 160s, but several of my old swimming buddies claimed to still go much higher* than those formulas would indicate is the norm, and more so that to do so was desirable. But like with resting rate, I think that some measure of recovery to resting rate is regarded as better measure to track.
*I'm trying to recall what I could get to back in the day, and I believe it was over 200, but I think 180 was more typical in a sprint workout.
I used to get 180 or so when I ran or used a stationary bike. Now I rarely get above 160 so far as I can tell (I don't run with a monitor).
Do the workout-eteers here track their Maximum Heart Rate
No. Who cares? What I want is sweet hot performance and performance alone (though I fail at this regularly).
... performance alone (though I fail at this regularly).
So that's what the crying is about.
212: I've never actually experimentally determined my max, but the standard age calculation doesn't seem to apply for me; I run with a heart rate monitor, and I've been able to comfortably stay at what should be > 80% of max for 20 minutes or so. And yeah, I focus more on recovery rate than sustained heart rate.
Here is more on the general science (bad) and the usefulness (not that much) of monitoring MHR.
The link at 217 is pretty much exactly the opposite of science.
Here we go:
One of the stopping points for me using HR monitors was when a friend and I were running and he repeatedly told me we needed to slow down because his HR was at 166 and he was going to "blow." Finally, I said, "Shut up and just run. If you were going to blow, you wouldn't be talking about it."How many endurance athletes out there go through this? How many people scale back their intensity during a training session because their heart rate gets too high? Lots. And if you take a look at any marathon or triathlon you will see lots of people with chest straps and fancy watches that measure that little ticker's beat. Why? They want to stay in the correct training zones so they don't blow! Here is an interesting observation. I originally heard Greg Glassman bring this up, so I looked into it: Take a look at NASCAR drivers. They can hold their HRs exactly where a marathoner can--around 142 to 152--for three hours while driving a car around a track at 180 mph. The literature indicates drivers have HRs reasonably close to boxing, basketball and soccer athletes. Formula 1 drivers average 160 BPM--about the same as a tennis player. Do we have any doubt as to which athlete is in better shape? Playing a game of championship beach soccer will produce an average heart rate of just more than 165, while case studies examining some collegiate baseball pitchers have demonstrated a 175.8 mean HR. This is similar to the average seen with professional rugby players. Are the demands and fitness requirements of these sports similar? Even worse, HRs for referees officiating a rugby match can approach those of the players.Intuitively, we know a NASCAR driver or F1 racer would be shredded by a boxer, marathoner and a soccer or rugby player in terms of endurance, even though the literature tells us they have similar heart rates during competition.
Practically, we can all imagine a driver telling us he's getting out there and playing some ball to get in better shape or maybe putting in some running. But imagine if the situation were reversed: Imagine a marathoner telling us he was going to do some driving to prepare for his next
race. We don't need a study to tell us this isn't going to work, even though the heart rates would be similar.In other words, physical stress doesn't necessarily play a role in HR because sitting in a car driving around a track does not require much physical activity. And pitching nine innings is unarguably less physical than playing a rugby match.But if we were to include the heat and the stress of racing at 180 mph, that would change something. Now if we factor in the idea that tennis players serving the ball have a higher heart rate than those returning the serve, we start to get into the idea of psychophysical stress. This is why your heart starts beating faster when you simply think about a challenging situation or get involved with outside physical stressors that don't necessarily require action.
This is the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems at work. It's why the heart rates of archers go from 71-126 BPM pre-draw to 88-147 BPM at full draw, even though they haven't done much physical work. It's
also why we see a significant increase in the HRs of chess players--75-86 BPM (I must admit my heart skips a beat when I fianchetto the bishop for a Nimzo-Indian defense).What Does It All Mean?
So HR numbers--while fun to look at--don't tell us what we think they do. If you were to run a mile with a heart rate of 140, then do that same mile with a heart rate of 160, what does it tell you? Maybe you're exerting yourself more on the second run, but are you necessarily running faster? Of course not. What if we reverse those numbers and your HR is lower on the second run? Is that because you pump more blood per stroke (from a training adaptation)? Is there more oxygen per unit of blood pumped? Or is the run actually easier, or, or, or ... ?
What do those numbers tell us? Surprisingly little. They tell us that if you're a trainer earning minimum wage at a big-box gym, watching your client move from the triceps press-down to the pec-dec to the elliptical machine, you probably won't kill him if you keep his heart rate below a certain level (that knowledge only requires a secondgrade math education to figure out). Let's put it another way: according to a 2011 study, the heart rate of an experienced boxer during a sparring workout in the gym is around 180, while the heart rate of a college kid playing a boxing video game is about 90 percent of that. Is the latter actually working 90 percent as hard as the former? Can you play a boxing video game and get 90 percent of the fitness level of an actual boxer? Again, we don't need a doctorate or a bunch of scientists to tell us the answer is no.We know a NASCAR driver or F1 racer would be shredded by a boxer, marathoner and a soccer or rugby player in terms of endurance, even though the literature tells us they have similar heart rates during competition. Even if you're a bona fide endurance athlete of the threesport variety--swimming, biking, running--monitoring
your HR is going to have severe problems in practical application. A study published by the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research in 2008 showed that although the cycling and running HRs of a triathlete could be similar, additional data showed a 12-point difference in
aerobic-threshold values--a huge margin of variability and potential error.
And as far back as 1998, a group of researchers at the University of Tennessee determined MHR intensity actually declined by up to 7 percent during long endurance events. But you already knew that, didn't you? After several hours
of running or cycling, you can't reach the same intensity level as before. Yet your age didn't appreciably change during that time, and neither did the 220 formula. Our personal experiences and those of our clients and friends, along with much of the published scientific data, provide incredibly strong evidence that HR is a poor correlate for intensity or training. This again shows us that not everything is what it seems. Yet, leaders in the medical industry and fitness community are basing training programs and even textbooks on a formula that's both inappropriate and inadequate.
That's sub-Slate level contrary-for-its-own-sake asshattery strawmanning.
Why do you find monitoring your heart rate more useful as an indicator of performance than, you know, your performance?
Almost no one would. That's what I mean by strawmanning.
So, why bother? If the general "max heart rate" formulas tell you little to nothing useful as an athlete, why invest time or energy in monitoring it?
Because most people aren't athletic and don't have any long history of their own performance to go by.
But even so, who cares. Just go out there and run -- if you feel like you can't run any more, stop. What does monitoring your MHR tell you?
You don't monitor your MHR, you monitor your heart rate. I mean, I don't but some people do. It tells them, compared to their own benchmarks, how hard they are working out unless they working out while driving a race car and for some reason didn't notice.
In other words, physical stress doesn't necessarily play a role in HR because sitting in a car driving around a track does not require much physical activity.
Whoever wrote this doesn't know much about actual race driving.
OK, but that's a dumb metric compared to say "I could run a 10 minute mile and now I can run an 8 minute mile."
If you have a history of heart disease or other conditions, it may be a bad idea to keep running until you feel like can't run any more.
230: Nobody is using it in place of that. The idea is that if you keep your heart rate in a certain zone, your workout will be more effective.
Right, and that's what's dumb.
I've never monitored HR at all, but my sense of its primary usefulness would be as a proxy for relative effort during interval training. It's very hard to stay at 80% of your VOmax threshold for 3 minutes, then drop to 50% for 5, then up to 100% for 1 minute - or hard to do it consistently, anyway. But that sort of training is incredibly effective, so doing it as well/consistently as possible has value.
Or so it seems to me. I obviously don't think it has enough value to spend money on a HR monitor, nor do I expect to do so, but I only train for my own benefit, so I can ride up hills faster and more easily. Precise performance, as in a race, doesn't matter to me at all.
That is, that's the idea for an invidual using a heart rate monitor as part of a regular exercise program. There are other uses for those just starting exercise, those with various heart issues, and in medical research.
233: The thing that nobody does is dumb. Right. Strawman.
236 based on a misreading of 233.
No, I mean "The idea is that if you keep your heart rate in a certain zone [as proclaimed by a set formula], your workout will be more effective" is dumb.
that's what's dumb.
Bullshit. Three days of interval training made an enormous difference, both in elapsed time and perceived effort, between 2 runs at my favorite long ride (~22 hilly miles). I've done that specific ride enough, and done general training rides of various types enough, to know that the intervals were much, much more effective than other kinds of training would have been (especially given the distance traveled).
There are other uses for those just starting exercise, those with various heart issues, and in medical research.
No problem with those.
233: Nothing in 219 even comes close to addressing what I'm talking about in 232.
No, interval training is fine -- more than fine, it's great. It's the emphasis on determining max heart rate and not pushing past those limits based on the 220 formula that's dumb.
238: The formula won't work prefectly for everyone, but everyone who tracks things carefully should be able to find their zones.
I mean, if you want to argue that precision about HR for workout effectiveness is dumb, I can't really argue, since we've established that I don't monitor. But I suspect that my intervals would have been even more effective had I been able to monitor. Why? The same reason that tracking speed or cadence help - our self-perception is vague at best, and as a result, it's easy to convince your self that a given level of effort is 80%, when the truth is that it's more like 60%, but you're getting tired/lazy/weak from drinking milk like a baby.
Just go out there and run -- if you feel like you can't run any more, stop.
I'm a really terrible runner. Even if I try to run slow, I run way too fast and get quickly tire and have to walk for far too long. But then when I'm walking, I get lazy, and my internal monologue starts to go something like, I'm pretty much back to normal, should I start running again? Naaaaah, better to be sure I'm totally really for definite recovered...
So wearing a monitor set to beep when I'm outside a certain range is really useful. I run until I reach a certain HR, then I can walk a bit to recover. But if the HR drops back under the range, it beeps again and I know I have to kick myself back into gear. Just a couple days of doing that and I am much better at keeping the HR within the range while running for a lot longer. Of course, I go through little phases of running separated by long periods, so I have to build up from scratch every time. I've never been good at running.
243: Alright, comity then. Kind of. Your original position that monitoring HR is dumb/pointless now seems to be more that using HR info in a certain way is dumb/counterproductive. Which it surely can be. But that's a much narrower claim.
According to the book, the HR maxes on the treadmills at the gym are complete nonsense. And there's no such thing as a "fat-burning zone", it's just a "not-really-doing-much-else zone". The harder, the better, (unless you've got a risk for a heart attack, probably.) So Halford is right.
Interval training, OTOH, is hugely effective.
248: Because of stickers on gym equipment, we should ignore a valid generalization about heart rates as related to aging.
From the book:
Wear a heart rate monitor if you'd like, but multiple recent studies have shown that people are often better judges of their workout's difficulty than eve the best gear. Maximum heart rates vary wildly, despite what those charts at health clubs suggest, and an exact calculation of yours would demand a treadmill test at an exercise physiology lab. Trust your intuition.
So, has anyone actually tried that Tabata protocol thing? 20 sec on, 10 off, eight reps, three times a week, and that's all the exercise anyone needs?
Sounds ridiculous, but also sounds seductively easy.
251 seems to elide a large middle ground between "chart at the health club" and "exact measurement from exercise physiology lab".
I can get on board with 246, but that's using the heart rate monitor as a little voice that says "pace yourself, don't walk too much"; a psychological as much as physiological reminder.
I think interval training is great and insanely effective; monitoring the precise boundaries of your VO2max is less important. If you're sprinting all out, you know it without a monitor; same thing for going at 50%, at the differences between 65-70, your intuitions are probably about as good a gauge of effort as the monitor (even putting aside the general problem of "VO2 Max" (which isn't a consistent thing)). Also, of course, you can time your intervals. In a narrow sense, I could get on board with heart rate monitoring in interval training as a psychological reminder to keep pushing harder.
I'm so terrible at running that I have to train my intuition.
Crossfit does Tabata stuff all the time. It (sometimes) looks easy but is not.
The original [max heart rate] charts had been developed in the 1970s for use by cardiologists dealing with ill patients. When researchers in this decade performed new MHR tests on healthy people, male and female, the formula turned out to be too simplistic...[problems with formula]...But if heart rate monitors are untrustworthy, then what can you rely on to tell you how hard you're working? As it turns out, the best recent science suggests, you can rely on you. According to a large body of experiments, a person's rating of perceived exertion, or RPE is a better indicator of actual physiological effort than standard heart-rate-based formulas.
Then a bunch more about RPEs.
Man. I am so totally on Team Moby on this one. And I don't even use a heart rate monitor! I probably should; I tend to overdo it once I get going running.
253 is part of what I was trying to say, more clearly stated.
I haven't seen the studies, but "multiple recent studies have shown that people are often better judges of their workout's difficulty than eve[n] the best gear" seems to take care of the issue raised in 253 completely.
This is a typical CF tabata-style workout:
8 rounds of squats - 20 seconds per round and 10 seconds rest between each round
8 rounds of pushups - 20 seconds per round and 10 seconds rest between each round
8 rounds of sit ups - 20 seconds per round and 10 seconds rest between each round
8 rounds of pull ups - 20 seconds per round and 10 seconds rest between each round
Because nobody every uses "often" to glide over something complicated they don't understand or that doesn't fit with their thesis.
And I would bet that RPE stuff is more reliable even in heart attack territory - that is, that people start feeling like shit are at risk, regardless of whether they're technically at 80% of MHR, and that if you feel fine, keep pressing upwards with no fear.
264: The "often" is Halford's, not in the original excerpt.
Oh, it's in the introductory paragraph I quoted in 251. The quote in 258 is from later on in the chapter.
Wait, in fairness, isn't the "often" in 251?
How does 265 square with the whole Crossfit making people puke thing?
When I was doing speed-walking type stuff for cardio I found a HRM helpful. I set a fairly broad target range but it was useful as a prompt to keep me from slowing down or dropping the intensity. I didn't really care if I exceeded the top end of my target range, though, as it was just there as a minor kick up the arse.
re: 252
We do tabata stuff in our Frenchy kickboxing class. We started recently [a few months] doing the 20 on 10 off, thing, but I/we've done 30/30 HIIT type training for years. I've not done much of the 20/10 pattern myself because of injuries [so I've run the timer most sessions], but the 30/30 pattern is often how I end training sessions. If I'm being sadistic or feeling fit, we'll segue from 5 or 6 minutes of 30 second intervals straight into sparring, and do five or six (short) rounds with no break between them. Your heart does feel like it may burst.
The 20/10 tabata stuff we do with a circuit of push-ups, burpees, crunches and star-jumpes, whereas the 30/30 thing we tend to do flat out kicking or punching drills with pads, or hitting a partner. i.e. throw as many roundhouse kicks to the leg as you ca in 30 seconds, then your partner goes, repeat.
There have been long periods when this is the only cardio I do, and while I'm not about to go out and run 20K, I can get through half a dozen rounds of sparring without getting too crazily out of breath.
I don't think the people who puke (this is actually super rare in practice, IME, people limit themselves) are at risk of a heart attack. It's just that your stomach gets het up from an intense workout.
271: I'm making stuff up here, but: I've puked from workouts before, and it didn't feel like I was about to have a heart attack, kind of?
re: 263
I think the classic tabata protocol is generally a shorter workout than that. Four minutes. We do 4 sets of 4 exercises, for a total of 8 minutes. Although we tend to put a 30-60 second rest between each set. Yours is double that again.
265: Heart attacks are often triggered by physical exertion. Raising your heart rate above a certain threshold will raise the risk of a heart attack. This has been conclusively shown on a population level. There is a great deal of debate about the scope conditions for this finding, but that is a very different matter. Obviously, many people will exercise past these levels without a heart attack, but that says nothing definate about relative risk.
You're claiming there is a meaningful threshold of risk for an entire population, rather than an average of individual thresholds of risk? I don't believe that.
275: Also, I thought a Tabata workout was aimed at getting you to peak cardiovascular output. Pull-ups, sit-ups, and push-ups don't really do that, at least the way I do them.
re: 278
They do if you are doing them fast with only those 10 second rests between intervals.
277: Threshold was poor phrasing, even for the individual level. I don't think anybody knows if there is a threshold that you can stay below safely or if, as seems more likely, that risk increases by some function of increasing effort.
I agree with that. How does that contradict whether RPE might be a more accurate red flag than 80% MHR?
I don't see that it does. If you feel you are working out too hard, you probably are. If your foot feels cold, your shoe probably came off. I'm not going to defend the sticker on your treadmill.
Now I'm confused. All I want to know is, am I going to die from a heart attack because I run too hard when I'm playing soccer?
Do you have an undiagnosed heart condition?
You'll raise your short term risk slightly and lower your long term risk. Unless you're really old or have some condition, in which case you should probably ask somebody.
Late to this, but a lot of bad exercise advice seems to stem from the idea that at lower intensities, one burns more fat for fuel than muscle, and of course everyone wants to lose fat. So you get a lot of advice for long slow cardio and not to let your heart rate above 140 (and the little blinky lights on the treadmill/elliptical are labelled things like "fat burning zone.") Which is nonsense if one burns more calories overall while working out at high intensities, because one will burn more fat, too. But it's the kind of thing that gets repeated as gospel (and has nothing to do with maximum heart rates on a population level.)
Wait, does it turn out that we all agree on everything? That's awesome.
I still think the paleo diet is a fraud that only manages to feel healthy because the average American diet is just that bad.
I'm pretty sure poor people are lazier than rich people.
I thought the only argument for 'fat burning zone' was that it was an intensity an out-of-shape person could keep up for long periods of time.
Speaking as someone who puked from his Crossfit workout last night, I think I was just too hot--it was in the 90s and there was no air conditioning.
I bought kale last night, but haven't yet done anything with it. Tomorrow morning's breakfast, I think. I also ran this morning, up the hill behind my house, interval-ish sprints. Woo!
On the other hand, I'm now at the library, staring at the shelf of career-advice books, and feeling absolutely hopeless about life; ah, well.
Oh yeah. So awesome. People in the gym must have been congratulating you like crazy.
Back when I was a serious speedskater, around age 12-13, I used to regularly throw up after 1000m or longer races/time trials. Same thing with rowing, in high school, with races or erg time trials. It made me feel like I was really pushing myself, which was good, because I was objectively terrible (at rowing, not speedskating; I was great at that), so I needed something for validation.
294 most definitely not to 293.2.
I was quick about it--went outside, hurled, came back in. I don't think anyone noticed.
I did that at a wedding once. Everybody noticed.
No, it's actually pretty awesome. I mean puking is not great, but that you put in that level of effort.
Trapnel, what was your situation vis a vis a shiny skin-tight one piece speed skating outfit?
I recently added a somewhat-relevant photo to the flickr pool.
Aside from that, Mrs. Chopper, how was Crossfit?
298: People usually do pay attention to the groom at the altar.
I didn't think they'd follow me outside.
On the other hand, I'm now at the library, staring at the shelf of career-advice books, and feeling absolutely hopeless about life; ah, well.
Hang in there, man. You'll figure something out.
On a related note, I have a job interview in an hour. Woo!
I did that at a wedding once. Everybody noticed
I only know of one person having done that at our very drunken wedding. (Neither bride nor groom.) The super drunk plus-one who ran into the ocean in her dress and lost the keys to her date's VW bug in the water managed not to puke.
Trapnel, what was your situation vis a vis a shiny skin-tight one piece speed skating outfit?
Oh hell yes. My whole family skated ("the family that skates together, hates each other stays together!"), and we typically wore matching--and extremely loud--suits; and I usually took the loudest color variant. Our role in the local club was to expand the sartorial Overton window, if you will.
Puking from exercise -- this is actually not uncommon? This seems very far out of my experience.
Maybe if I ate a rich meal, and then decided to go on a long run? But why would I do that?
299: What was sad was how little effort it took. I've been extraordinarily sedentary the past 6 months or so--yesterday made me really aware of just how far I have to go to get back to a baseline of fitness. Oh well, journey of a thousand miles, &c.
305: Puking from excessive drinking -- that I understand.
I only know of one person having done that at our very drunken wedding.
Before noon, even.
Yay Teo!
Yeah, I should probably post pictures of 12-year-old me in my flame-colored skintight suit to the flickr pool, but I don't know if they were ever scanned--we're talking 20 year old pictures, here.
310: Before noon, or after sunrise?
Puking from exercise -- this is actually not uncommon?
My grandfather who ran track at Claremont supposedly puked after every race. I don't usually puke after workouts but when I do cycles of high intensity Crossfit type stuff it's not uncommon for me to get some nausea.
I get nausea all the time from exercise but haven't gone into full puke mode. But its partially because we do a lot of running through a disgusting alley where bums go to shoot up and vomit.
I should probably post pictures of 12-year-old me in my flame-colored skintight suit to the flickr pool
Yes, yes, you should. Good luck to the job seekers.
If the bums can vomit from just shooting up, they must be really fit.
315: The one is early in the day, the other is very, very late at night.
Stories about vomiting: the gift everyone appreciates.
LB: Yeah, I've done the Tabata protocol. I like them a lot, since I generally trust that twenty seconds will pass and all I have to do is give 110%! until they do.
I find push-ups to be a demanding Tabata. My favorite is a combination of bodyweight squats.
Squat 1: bodyweight deep back squats.
Squat 2: Deep front squats
Squat 3: Drop squats (where you jump a little to force yourself to drop into the squat even faster)
Squat 4: Squat jumps (include a jump after standing up from a squat)
Twenty seconds on, ten off, a couple rounds, leads to nicely burning quads and back.
306 deserves a LOT more attention. Like, a sitcom based on it, probably.
324: Is Wes Anderson working on anything right now?
Interview went well, although I'm pretty sure they're not going to offer me the job.
He's just not cut out to be a surrogate mother.
They were very impressed with my qualifications but seemed to think I was overqualified for this particular position, which is basically right. They were super nice, though, and kept suggesting other opportunities I might look into. It was ultimately more like an informational interview than a regular job interview.
gswift, do you add any protein powder to your smoothie?
Not sure how I missed this before. I've not tried combining protein powder with the yogurt ones but I do a version of just milk, chocolate whey protein, and frozen blueberries that's not bad. I should try adding a bit to the yogurt ones to see how it is.
Yeah, I should probably post pictures of 12-year-old me in my flame-colored skintight suit to the flickr pool, but I don't know if they were ever scanned--we're talking 20 year old pictures, here.
YES, PLEASE.
He's just not cut out to be a surrogate mother.
S/b wet nurse.
heebie, I don't remember what mattress we bought. I know that I read some article about how once you get above about $300 or so, there's not a measurable difference in quality, and I think we spent about $800.
The bed frame we have currently is a platform with just a mattress, and no box spring. Nobody asserts that the box spring is crucial, do they?
People who make box springs probably do.
Mattress companies do: we were told the last time we bought a mattress that if you don't use it with a box spring, you'll usually void the warrant. We said fuck it and just use the mattress on a platform bed anyway, because box springs are stupid. And not particularly feasible for people living in a 3rd-floor walkup.