I Beat Donovan :) ???

donnie....the point point was you gotta resort to a GNC type of store.
Be it on-line or whatever. Whey protein shakes means you have to go to
a GNC type of store, be it B&M or online. Every now and then you
can find a deal on Ebay, I use the e-tailer worldwidesports or
something like that. i think they have the best prices around.

3 chicken breast is about 120 grams a protein and also "bloat"
IMO...but i've not eaten chicken in 15+ years....so I'm not up to
speed. the issue was nutritional intake naturally without going to a
GNC type of store. I say "throw in the towel" and cultivate a product
along the lines of stuff you see in a GNC.

I hate filling up on food and very much rely on liquid. I even get
tired of the damn typical protein shake stuff
(chocolate/vanilla/strawberry, etc.). For the past year I was so glad
to find "Isopure" protein drinks which come in typical flavors
(orange/berry/apple/ etc. and are viscous drinks).

And are for Carbs being cheap? Not the point. Suffient Carbs are
"filling" donnie. Do the math. 5g per .lb of weight.....When you do
the math on all this stuff and connect it to a "how filling"? at what
"filling consequence"....you're going to ultimately see this is
ridiiculous to try and eat daily....and train/run well.

that's why I long ago learned the only way to consume .75g-.9g of
protein and and 5g of Carbohydrates per .lb of your body weight is to
rely heavily on liquid intake.

again, this is in the context of doing it day in, day out and realizing
you're going to want to run well and fast twice a day. If you want to
run lean come training time....you have to go to a GNC type of store be
it online or B&M and rely on concentrated products they offer. you're
dealing w/competing interesting 1) substantial nutriional intake &
2)training free of feeling bloated.

Quoted message said:

donnie....the point point was you gotta resort to a GNC type of store.
Be it on-line or whatever.

this is a nit pick, but i shop at whole foods, and i'm pretty sure they
have both whey and soy protein powder available there. (probably at 4
times the price that "donnie" pays, but still the same stuff). to me
whole foods is the opposite of gnc, but that's just my perception/opinion.

hh, drinks milk for recovery

h squared said:

Quoted message said:

donnie....the point point was you gotta resort to a GNC type of store.
Be it on-line or whatever.

this is a nit pick, but i shop at whole foods, and i'm pretty sure they
have both whey and soy protein powder available there. (probably at 4
times the price that "donnie" pays, but still the same stuff). to me
whole foods is the opposite of gnc, but that's just my perception/opinion.

hh, drinks milk for recovery

A whole food?

Quoted message said:

3 chicken breast is about 120 grams a protein and also "bloat"
IMO...but i've not eaten chicken in 15+ years....so I'm not up to
speed.

(-; You're not supposed to eat it in one sitting, the idea is to spread it
over several small meals. It's not that hard. But I haven't done this for
a long time either.

Quoted message said:

And are for Carbs being cheap? Not the point. Suffient Carbs are
"filling" donnie. Do the math. 5g per .lb of weight.....

If you're force-feeding yourself with a pre-determined amount of carbs, it's
no wonder you're so fat (-; No such thing as an essential carb. Your body will
complain (in particular, your stomach will complain loudly) if you're not
getting enough.

Quoted message said:

When you do
the math on all this stuff and connect it to a "how filling"? at what
"filling consequence"....you're going to ultimately see this is
ridiiculous to try and eat daily....and train/run well.

I do just fine up to 80 miles per week, without any carb supplement of any
kind. It doesn't require me to stuff myself.

Quoted message said:

again, this is in the context of doing it day in, day out and realizing
you're going to want to run well and fast twice a day. If you want to

Seriously, I find it amusing that you're lecturing me on high volume
training. When you commence something resembling a training program, go
ahead and lecture me on the nutritional demands associated with that. Until
then, excuse me while I laugh.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

you gotta resort to a GNC type of store.

3 chicken breast is about 120 grams a protein and also "bloat"

Suffient Carbs are "filling" donnie.

I'm not buying your arguments about not being able to get enough
nutrients in plain old food.

- I get plenty of protein from my diet, which includes animals and
their eggs and their milk products. Mmmmm, animals! No problems with
"bloat" here.

- Depending on which foods you're eating, carbs are *not* very filling.
That's a big reason why so many people get so fat eating lots of bread
and sweets, and why they lose so much weight on Atkins: calorie for
calorie, protein and fat are much more filling than refined carbs.

- Another big factor in feeling full is getting lots of water. It
occupies physical space inside you for a while, it's literally filling
you up, displacing room and appetite which you might otherwise fill
with more carbs. Any diet book will tell you to drink lots of water
for this reason.

- Running around 35-40 miles a week as I've been, I find it easy to eat
as much or more calories than I burn. My weight's not a huge issue,
but I'd like to lose a few more pounds, and find I need some conscious
brakes on my intake if I want the needle on the scale to keep inching
down and not up. In other words, I'm not finding it difficult to pack
in enough carbs, I'm finding it more challenging to keep from eating
too many.

Now I do think something like Endurox is useful in its time and place,
because it's convenient and more easily consumed and utilized than
solid food in the immediate wake of a workout... and it really seems to
work IME. And yeah, if you're not going to eat animals, maybe protein
powder becomes a practical necessity and not merely a convenience, er,
food.

But really, aside from the fact that none of us *needs* GNC [censored] at the
base of our personal food pyramid, it just sounds perversely
masochistic, with all that tasty food out there waiting to be eaten.
So many fruits and veggies and animals and sweets, so many recipes, so
many restaurants, so little calorie allowance!

CP,

we're not talking about a runner of your training schedule. the thread
is in the context of doing 2-a-day training and we're assumming that
equates to 70-80 + mpw.

we're talking about 5g of carbos & .75-.9g of protein per pound of
your body weight, day after day....all while not feeling too bloated to
train hard come training time.

we're talking about _twice_ the level/measure of training you
referenced you engage in. last night in fact the NYRR had a seminar on
this very topic...my only point is it's damn near impossible to take in
these amounts of carbos&proteins without relying on the products of GNC
type of stores. Eating 5g of carbos & .75-.9g for protein naturally
per day is going to mean you will feel bloated at both your training
times in doing 2-a-days, the AM and PM training.

Quoted message said:

we're not talking about a runner of your training schedule. the thread
is in the context of doing 2-a-day training and we're assumming that
equates to 70-80 + mpw.

Which is what I have done and continue to do without stuffing myself. BTW, an
extra 5 miles a day amounts to about 500 calories a day -- get yourself too
small (250gm) fruit yogurts, or a muffin, or two strong cups of hot chocolate
(one in the morning, one at night) and you've got it covered.

Quoted message said:

we're talking about 5g of carbos & .75-.9g of protein per pound of
your body weight, day after day....all while not feeling too bloated to
train hard come training time.

Again, no need to force feed yourself. The worst thing that will happen if you
don't get "enough" carbs is that you might lose some weight. In your case, that
wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Quoted message said:

we're talking about _twice_ the level/measure of training you
referenced you engage in.

But that doesn't reaquire twice the number of calories. In fact it only requires
a moderate increase, as I point out above. One can easily get that increase
by taking in a couple of snacks (for example).

Quoted message said:

last night in fact the NYRR had a seminar on
this very topic...my only point is it's damn near impossible to take in
these amounts of carbos&proteins without relying on the products of GNC
type of stores.

My point is that you're dead wrong. Most Americans have no problem eating
enormous amounts of calories.

Quoted message said:

Eating 5g of carbos & .75-.9g for protein naturally
per day is going to mean you will feel bloated at both your training

Nonsense.

Quoted message said:

times in doing 2-a-days, the AM and PM training.

For someone who *still* doesn't do anything resembling training, you're blowing
a lot of smoke.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

not lecturing you donnie....just expressing the view of a 42 year old
and my comments are from those of a person 10 or 11 years older than
you that's cross that 40 age barrier. it's different on this side of
the fence. it is.

i've found supplements play a more essential/imparative role with age,
it's that simple. donnie...when you get to be my age, you're going to
find your metabolism rate isn't quite what it was when you were the age
you are now. i think then you'll better appreciate my points.

metabolism rate, injury potential, injury recovery time, nutritional
needs, etc...at all is different on my side of the fence and your
personal experience. just as these guys on this ng that have crossed
the 50 and 60 age barriers i am sure can tell me how it's different
than when they were my age, 42.

there's a reason runners generally leave the endeavor as they approach
and hit 40. the pounding on the body and toll it takes all adds up in
time.

Quoted message said:

not lecturing you donnie....just expressing the view of a 42 year old
and my comments are from those of a person 10 or 11 years older than
you that's cross that 40 age barrier. it's different on this side of
the fence. it is.

It's different in the sense that you probably need to eat less than me.

Quoted message said:

i've found supplements play a more essential/imparative role with age,
it's that simple.

Vitamin supplements, protein supplements, maybe. (Though I only take protein
powder because it's cheaper than "real food" protein). But no need for carb
supplements. Plenty of carbs in ordinary food. If you're not taking in enough
carbs, your stomach will tell you so.

Quoted message said:

donnie...when you get to be my age, you're going to
find your metabolism rate isn't quite what it was when you were the age
you are now. i think then you'll better appreciate my points.

The fact that your metabolism is slowing down, is all the reason to take in
*less* calories, not more. In other words, second-guessing your stomach to
shove down some arbitrary number of calories is even more foolish for you
than it is for me.

Again, why not take in a few less calories ? The worst thing that will happen
is that you'll lose a little bit of weight.

Quoted message said:

there's a reason runners generally leave the endeavor as they approach
and hit 40. the pounding on the body and toll it takes all adds up in
time.

All the more reason to drop a few pounds (-;

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[email hidden] wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

not lecturing you donnie....just expressing the view of a 42 year old
and my comments are from those of a person 10 or 11 years older than
you that's cross that 40 age barrier. it's different on this side of
the fence. it is.

i've found supplements play a more essential/imparative role with age,
it's that simple. donnie...when you get to be my age, you're going to
find your metabolism rate isn't quite what it was when you were the age
you are now. i think then you'll better appreciate my points.

metabolism rate, injury potential, injury recovery time, nutritional
needs, etc...at all is different on my side of the fence and your
personal experience. just as these guys on this ng that have crossed
the 50 and 60 age barriers i am sure can tell me how it's different
than when they were my age, 42.

I wholeheartedly agree. Being the same age as you Lance, I agree, Donnovan
just doesnt' get it. It may be he's got a different metabolism than some of
us, but what you describe certainly fits me. Over 40 any problems you've had
with your health get magnified, and you've got to be attentive and proactive
to stay injury free and perform well.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

there's a reason runners generally leave the endeavor as they approach
and hit 40. the pounding on the body and toll it takes all adds up in
time.

Tony said:

I wholeheartedly agree. Being the same age as you Lance, I agree, Donnovan
just doesnt' get it. It may be he's got a different metabolism than some of
us, but what you describe certainly fits me.

I'd like to get some clarification here -- what, specifically, have I said in
this thread that you don't agree with ? If so, would you care to follow up to
*my* post, instead of taking unsubstantiated swipes ?

Are you saying, for example, that you find it necessary to forcefeed yourself
with carbohydrate supplements like Lance does ?

It's not a question of "getting it", or not "getting it" -- Lances assertions
in this thread simply defy logic. If I don't "get it", perhaps it's because
Lance has not presented a case that a logical person could plausibly "get".

For example, the idea that it's harder for a 40-something who claims to have a
"slow metabolism" to get *sufficient* calories is absurd (since the
40-something runner actually needs fewer calories, not more)

Quoted message said:

Over 40 any problems you've had
with your health get magnified,

All the more reason not to look for ways to stuff more calories into your
system, right ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we're not talking about a runner of your training schedule. the thread
is in the context of doing 2-a-day training and we're assumming that
equates to 70-80 + mpw.

Which is what I have done and continue to do without stuffing myself. BTW,

an

Quoted message said:

extra 5 miles a day amounts to about 500 calories a day -- get yourself too
small (250gm) fruit yogurts, or a muffin, or two strong cups of hot

chocolate

Quoted message said:

(one in the morning, one at night) and you've got it covered.

What Lance is doing is somewhat similar to what I'm doing now - eating
generous carbs after workouts to enhance rapid glycogen synthesis. I posted
something on this today. Even if the proof isn't sufficient for you, it
definitely works for me, Lance, and others. Though his is more
protein-oriented the concept is I think similar.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we're talking about 5g of carbos & .75-.9g of protein per pound of
your body weight, day after day....all while not feeling too bloated to
train hard come training time.

Again, no need to force feed yourself. The worst thing that will happen if

you

Quoted message said:

don't get "enough" carbs is that you might lose some weight. In your case,

that

Quoted message said:

wouldn't be such a bad thing.

What are you suddenly low-carb? The point is to get the carbs into your
body, in quantity, when it needs them most.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we're talking about _twice_ the level/measure of training you
referenced you engage in.

But that doesn't reaquire twice the number of calories. In fact it only

requires

Quoted message said:

a moderate increase, as I point out above. One can easily get that increase
by taking in a couple of snacks (for example).

A moderate increase in calories maybe, but metabolically, it may mean you
have to eat according to a different schedule in order to recover between
runs. Many other runners experience a similar effect to what he describes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

last night in fact the NYRR had a seminar on
this very topic...my only point is it's damn near impossible to take in
these amounts of carbos&proteins without relying on the products of GNC
type of stores.

My point is that you're dead wrong. Most Americans have no problem eating
enormous amounts of calories.

Supplements aren't necessary, but they sure make it easy to get that
post-workout meal into the body quickly. I use endurox and supplement that
with other food when taking in more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Eating 5g of carbos & .75-.9g for protein naturally
per day is going to mean you will feel bloated at both your training

Nonsense.

Quoted message said:

times in doing 2-a-days, the AM and PM training.

For someone who *still* doesn't do anything resembling training, you're

blowing

Quoted message said:

a lot of smoke.

Just a side comment from an observer, just because he rolls his own training
and isn't following someone else's plan, doens't mean he's not training,
especially with his increase in volume. And besides, his results are doing
the talking. I applaud his efforts.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

I wholeheartedly agree. Being the same age as you Lance, I agree,

Donnovan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just doesnt' get it. It may be he's got a different metabolism than some

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

us, but what you describe certainly fits me.

I'd like to get some clarification here -- what, specifically, have I said

in

Quoted message said:

this thread that you don't agree with ? If so, would you care to follow up

to

Quoted message said:

*my* post, instead of taking unsubstantiated swipes ?

Are you saying, for example, that you find it necessary to forcefeed

yourself

Quoted message said:

with carbohydrate supplements like Lance does ?

Necessary no. Beneficial, definitely yes. The benefits show up over time as
much better recovery between exercise, and in my case feeling satisfied and
full the rest of the day, which means (to me) the body has what it needs.

Quoted message said:

It's not a question of "getting it", or not "getting it" -- Lances

assertions

Quoted message said:

in this thread simply defy logic. If I don't "get it", perhaps it's because
Lance has not presented a case that a logical person could plausibly "get".

What I meant by your "not getting it" was what I see as a general dismissal
of the concerns of older runners. Lance was saying nutrition is even more
important to older runners, which I agree with. But I've also seen you
dismiss what other older runners have said, including myself.

Specifically, when you and I argued about daily running vs. running a few
times a week longer, I said it somehow works better for me to run longer
less frequently. You said there's no science to back this up, which may be
true, but somewhat older runners than you have issues you have yet to deal
with. It's probably something different for each runner as he ages -- but
you're dismissive of it.

Believe me, older runners aren't necessarily wimps who just don't want to
train 70+mpw. There are factors in how hard every individual can train, and
those factors become more limiting as you age, yes even at slightly over 40.
Lance has found something that makes a difference, and who are you to say it
doesnt? There are not only others out there with a similar experience to
his, there is some evidence to support it.

Quoted message said:

For example, the idea that it's harder for a 40-something who claims to

have a

Quoted message said:

"slow metabolism" to get *sufficient* calories is absurd (since the
40-something runner actually needs fewer calories, not more)

Quoted message said:

Over 40 any problems you've had
with your health get magnified,

All the more reason not to look for ways to stuff more calories into your
system, right ?

I can't speak for Lance here. For me forcing the carb meal into myself -
which was harder at first but now I'm fully used to it and it doesn't seem
like forcing - means my muscles get rechared faster, when they're most
receptive to it. It also means I'm not hungry the rest of the day, and can
thus eat less calories overall.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony said:

What Lance is doing is somewhat similar to what I'm doing now - eating
generous carbs after workouts to enhance rapid glycogen synthesis.

No. He's not saying that, and I'm not arguing against that.

What he's saying is that he *needs* to take carbs in a liquid form to maintain
sufficient *daily caloric intake*.

Quoted message said:

I posted
something on this today. Even if the proof isn't sufficient for you, it
definitely works for me, Lance, and others.

Well, that's great, and it's a practice I agree with. I always take some sort
of carbs and usually protein also after long runs.

Quoted message said:

Though his is more protein-oriented the concept is I think similar.

Taking protein post-workout to enhance recovery also makes sense.

But he's talking about maintaining adequate intake, not post-workout refueling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, no need to force feed yourself. The worst thing that will happen if
you
don't get "enough" carbs is that you might lose some weight. In your case,
that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

What are you suddenly low-carb? The point is to get the carbs into your
body, in quantity, when it needs them most.

Again, we've got our wires crossed. Lance and I are arguing about overall daily
intake, not post-workout nutrition. Quickly absorbing calories post-workout is
a legitimate issue. Trying to forcefeed yourself to maintain a high overall
daily intake isn't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we're talking about _twice_ the level/measure of training you
referenced you engage in.

But that doesn't reaquire twice the number of calories. In fact it only
requires
a moderate increase, as I point out above. One can easily get that increase
by taking in a couple of snacks (for example).

A moderate increase in calories maybe, but metabolically, it may mean you
have to eat according to a different schedule in order to recover between
runs. Many other runners experience a similar effect to what he describes.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, he is not "describing" that at all.

That's a different discussion/debate (and on that debate, I happen to be on
your side)

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Just a side comment from an observer, just because he rolls his own training
and isn't following someone else's plan, doens't mean he's not training,

I'm just giving him a hard time.

Quoted message said:

especially with his increase in volume.

Volume is important. But to fully benefit from it, you need to put some solid
speed work on top of it.

Quoted message said:

And besides, his results are doing the talking.

His results tell us that what he's doing now is a much better strategy than what
he was doing before. Interestingly enough, his belief in "psychology", the
finer points of nutrition, and ouija boards or whatever else he uses have been
a constant throughout -- so this rapid improvement is probably a result of the
increase in volume.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony said:

Quoted message said:

Are you saying, for example, that you find it necessary to forcefeed
yourself
with carbohydrate supplements like Lance does ?

Necessary no. Beneficial, definitely yes. The benefits show up over time as
much better recovery between exercise, and in my case feeling satisfied and
full the rest of the day, which means (to me) the body has what it needs.

Addressed elsewhere. Post workout nutrition is good. Stuffing yourself isn't.

Quoted message said:

What I meant by your "not getting it" was what I see as a general dismissal
of the concerns of older runners. Lance was saying nutrition is even more
important to older runners, which I agree with.

I agree with it too.

Quoted message said:

But I've also seen you dismiss what other older runners have said, including
myself.

I'm an equal opportunity dismisser. I've also dismissed BS from younger runners.

I'll say this again btw -- you're really not all that old.

Quoted message said:

Specifically, when you and I argued about daily running vs. running a few
times a week longer, I said it somehow works better for me to run longer
less frequently.

That might work fine for you. I bet there are also coaches who help you get
great results out of a run 6 times a week routine.

Quoted message said:

You said there's no science to back this up, which may be true,

The main problem I had with your theory is you didn't just say "this is my
experience" and leave it at that. You had to come up with some grand
pseudoscientific twaddle as well. I can see how one could get perfectly good
results from that program. What I don't buy is the proposition that less
frequent training promotes recovery. This has not been my experience anyway.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Believe me, older runners aren't necessarily wimps who just don't want to
train 70+mpw.

I agree. It's not just the older runners that are "wimps" or whatever. Most
people aren't willing to invest the time and energy it takes to log a large
amount of mileage. Some are honest about it and say that they don't have time.
Some whine about hardwirded genetic limits. But few of the whiners have really
tested those limits.

Quoted message said:

There are factors in how hard every individual can train, and
those factors become more limiting as you age, yes even at slightly over 40.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Lance has found something that makes a difference,

Yes, running higher mileage has made a difference. He runs faster on high
mileage than he did on low mileage.

I don't one can argue that he's a nutrition strategy that makes a difference,
since that hasn't changed a great deal over the last several years. To argue
that something makes a difference, you need a baseline to compare it to.

For example, I wasn't really sure whether or not my high mileage had been the
factor in my improvenent until I tried reducing it, and finding that I got
slower.

Quoted message said:

and who are you to say it doesnt?
There are not only others out there with a similar experience to
his, there is some evidence to support it.

Again, the post-workout nutrition discussion is a separate issue.

Quoted message said:

I can't speak for Lance here. For me forcing the carb meal into myself -

No, we're not talking about post-workout nutrition. Stop switching topics.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

we're not talking about a runner of your training schedule. the thread
is in the context of doing 2-a-day training and we're assumming that
equates to 70-80 + mpw.

Understood. If I add 30-35 MPW, that's an extra 400-500 calories per
day - which should probably be mostly carbs (though Sears of Zone
notoriety says mostly fats, and FWIW I feel better on a roughly
zone-like ratio - but with extra carbs before/during/after exercise -
than higher carbs all the time).

I'm just saying, *for me*, I can't imagine that being a problem. 400
more carb calories - easy, I increase the size of my post-morning-run
cereal & fruit & yogurt & rice milk (as it is, if I run first, I always
want more than I allow) and maybe increase my one slice of low-calorie
(it's relatively honest bread, just sliced thin) toast with egg to two
made with normal bread, and maybe two eggs. That gets me, what, better
than halfway there? Add a sports drink or a can of coke in the
afternoon (wouldn't be my choice but an easy example) and I'm there.

I could easily eat this - and more - now on 45 MPW and I guarantee it
wouldn't make me feel any more bloated at 7:30 PM for my evening run.
Though I haven't run doubles, I sometimes run in the AM sometimes PM,
and eat about the same either way; so I do have a good idea what my
body feels like at both times on the kind of food we're talking about.
Yeah, I can't claim with 100% assurance that even at 80 MPW of mostly
doubles, I'd still find it easy to *gain* weight by eating as I wished,
but unless adding 35 miles decreases one's appetite, I'd surely have no
problem maintaining it.

Maybe you have something funny going on in your tummy, if you get
bloated eating enough food? Or maybe the foods you like aren't
calorie-dense: if you're trying to stuff in x,000 cals in just veggies
and fruits, yeah, with all that water and fiber, that's gonna be tough.
A lot less so with bread, pastries, pizza, cereal, sugary anything.

And I've no idea where your "5g of carbs per lb of body weight" comes
from - sounds like too much to me - at 4 calories per grab, that's 3000
carb calories alone for a 150 pounder, meaning what, close to 4000 cals
including protein and fat? That sounds like someone doing more like 20
miles a day, not 10-ish, doesn't it?

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I'm an equal opportunity dismisser.

this is hard to argue against, lol...

Quoted message said:

For example, I wasn't really sure whether or not my high mileage had been the
factor in my improvenent until I tried reducing it, and finding that I got
slower.

what led you to cut back? injury? burnout? experimentation? scheduling
conflicts? (sorry, i missed the story on this one, but i was curious).
h

h squared said:

Quoted message said:

For example, I wasn't really sure whether or not my high mileage had been
the factor in my improvenent until I tried reducing it, and finding that I
got slower.

what led you to cut back? injury? burnout? experimentation? scheduling
conflicts? (sorry, i missed the story on this one, but i was curious).

Experimentation. It worked really well for a while, I ran a very good workout
(17:38 for 5k in an interval workout), but unfortunately it didn't last -- for
about 6 weeks I ran very well, then the effects of the low mileage started to
bite me.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

h squared said:

what led you to cut back? injury? burnout? experimentation? scheduling
conflicts? (sorry, i missed the story on this one, but i was curious).

Experimentation. It worked really well for a while, I ran a very good workout
(17:38 for 5k in an interval workout), but unfortunately it didn't last -- for
about 6 weeks I ran very well, then the effects of the low mileage started to
bite me.

isn't that similar to when trying to peak? getting in lots of miles, and
then when you cut back, there's a kind of super-recovery effect (don't
know how to describe it accurately). it can't last as you start to
detrain with less work, afaict.

anyway, thanks for the answer,
h

cp,

you're in the NYC area right?...c'mon man...join the ruckus. when ya
gonna come get down w/me, donnie, and the thousands of others in nyrr
races?

there's no reason for you to not know me and donnie in RL. that's
what's fun about this ng...to connect posters w/real life experiences.
brian b. in texas and i based on our times shared a couple miles within
immediate proximity of each other in the nyc marathon...but i don't
know him in RL.

donnie's tips and pointers to me have helped me be a better runner, no
question. sure, we mix it up on this ng....but it's a lot of fun to
take the ng to the starting line. so what's up cp?....ya gonna come
out the closet and "front" on a race day in ny any time soon?

we mix it up and talk [censored]...but we cheer each other on, on this
ng...at the end of the day....