Building A Better Bumblebee

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:Barefoot Run: 3.1 miles

Weather: Sunny and cool. Gear: Bare feet, shorts, T.

Out barefoot again to keep working on form -- and to have a little fun. I did laps around the block and made a point of steering toward rougher sections of asphalt. My HR took a while to come up, which had me excited there for a few minutes, but then my body apparently realized I was running and revved up the ol' tachometer.

I let my HR rise a little as I kept running, and I picked up the pace in the last lap to focus a little more, getting down to a 6:15/mi pace at the very end. It felt pretty good.

Average HR for entire run: 141. Max HR (after punching it a bit) 172

Keep that HR up and Maffetone will take your MAF-fiend fan club card away.

Even the Maff allows some higher-HR work, as long as its a little bit. There's such a thing a being anaerobically deficient.

Core and calf work

Sets of 3, 12-10-8 of:
-Modified side-leg lifts.
-Double-leg bridge "marching" while keeping pelvis steady.
-Bridge with single-leg extensions.
-Supine leg lift, keeping TA engaged and pelvis aligned
-Prone leg lift, same as above
-Half-squat using theraband around knees.
-Side-step using theraband around knees.
-Ankle flexion using theraband.
-Double-leg heel raises.
-Single-leg heel raises.

Standing Psoas stretches. (5-6 x 10 seconds left side, a few less on right side)

---

Walk: 3 miles

Weather: Sunny and mild. 69 degrees with a cool breeze. Gear: Vivobarefoots

Out for a walk at lunch, with a slightly grumpy right ankle. I was standing up and pivoted on my ankle slightly and felt a lot of unexpected discomfort. Grr. It didn't really bother me while walking, though it feels tight and grumpy now.

I hope the ankle pain goes away. I'm inspired by your core/calf work. It reminds me to get my PT and hips of death sheets out and actually do them.

Mark B wrote:

###

So I decided to try one of those grocery store body fat measuring do-dads today, since I've never had it done before. It weighed me fully dressed (the notion of stripping nekkid in the grocery store amazingly didn't occur to me until just now) and gave me an irritatingly high number (188). Oh well. Work to do. Anyway, the fat measuring part told me I'm at 23.72% body fat, 76.28% lean mass. That's considered "acceptable" by the machine, if not "healthy" - which is 18% or less.

That works out to 45 pounds of fat, 143 pounds of lean mass. That's a fascinating set of numbers. Does it mean that I'd be 0% body fat at 142 pounds? Probably not, but still. If I calculated it out and lean mass stayed constant, what'd losing 20 pounds do the picture? Hm. (Finds calculator...) That's 14.8%, I think. How about losing 30 pounds? That'd be 9.4%. Hm. Interesting. Quite the difference.

So here's the numbers I promised you Mark.  I signed up for a weight loss challenge last winter not necessarily to lose weight but I wanted to play on the Tanita Body Composition Analyzer.  Even though they weighed us in private we also kept our clothes on and they deducted 1 pound for clothing.  We did have to remove our shoes and socks in order for the machine to work properly.  So here's the results...

                  Jan 23               Mar 18            May 14
Weight        150                    148               145
Fat %          23.0                   19.6             19.3  (desirable range 23.0-33.9)
Fat mass      34.4                   29.0              28.0

Marty's numbers
Weight        178                                          174
Fat %          13.0                                        10.7  (desirable range 13.0-24.9)
Fat mass      23.2                                         18.6

I'm not going to pretend I know what any of them mean or that I think they are very accurate but it was fun.  It also gave us muscle mass, bone mass, water %, BMI etc.    It does appear that most if not all of our weight was lost in the form of fat...

Nice job on the core work btw...

Julie wrote:I hope the ankle pain goes away. I'm inspired by your core/calf work. It reminds me to get my PT and hips of death sheets out and actually do them.

Thanks, Julie! I think I just got a little carried away (who, me?) on the ankle exercises and pushed them a little too hard. It seems better now, so I'm hoping it just fired a warning shot across my bow.

For the record, I detest doing this PT exercises. So tedious! But the longer I do this, the more I realize how important it is.

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:

###

So I decided to try one of those grocery store body fat measuring do-dads today, since I've never had it done before. It weighed me fully dressed (the notion of stripping nekkid in the grocery store amazingly didn't occur to me until just now) and gave me an irritatingly high number (188). Oh well. Work to do. Anyway, the fat measuring part told me I'm at 23.72% body fat, 76.28% lean mass. That's considered "acceptable" by the machine, if not "healthy" - which is 18% or less.

That works out to 45 pounds of fat, 143 pounds of lean mass. That's a fascinating set of numbers. Does it mean that I'd be 0% body fat at 142 pounds? Probably not, but still. If I calculated it out and lean mass stayed constant, what'd losing 20 pounds do the picture? Hm. (Finds calculator...) That's 14.8%, I think. How about losing 30 pounds? That'd be 9.4%. Hm. Interesting. Quite the difference.

So here's the numbers I promised you Mark.  I signed up for a weight loss challenge last winter not necessarily to lose weight but I wanted to play on the Tanita Body Composition Analyzer.  Even though they weighed us in private we also kept our clothes on and they deducted 1 pound for clothing.  We did have to remove our shoes and socks in order for the machine to work properly.  So here's the results...

                  Jan 23               Mar 18            May 14
Weight        150                    148               145
Fat %          23.0                   19.6             19.3  (desirable range 23.0-33.9)
Fat mass      34.4                   29.0              28.0

Marty's numbers
Weight        178                                          174
Fat %          13.0                                        10.7  (desirable range 13.0-24.9)
Fat mass      23.2                                         18.6

I'm not going to pretend I know what any of them mean or that I think they are very accurate but it was fun.  It also gave us muscle mass, bone mass, water %, BMI etc.    It does appear that most if not all of our weight was lost in the form of fat...

Nice job on the core work btw...

Hey, Nancy! Those are some interesting numbers! It shows to me how a little bit of weight loss can go a long way in changing the body fat percentage. And that Marty must be a pretty lean fellah.

Mark B wrote:

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:

###

So I decided to try one of those grocery store body fat measuring do-dads today, since I've never had it done before. It weighed me fully dressed (the notion of stripping nekkid in the grocery store amazingly didn't occur to me until just now) and gave me an irritatingly high number (188). Oh well. Work to do. Anyway, the fat measuring part told me I'm at 23.72% body fat, 76.28% lean mass. That's considered "acceptable" by the machine, if not "healthy" - which is 18% or less.

That works out to 45 pounds of fat, 143 pounds of lean mass. That's a fascinating set of numbers. Does it mean that I'd be 0% body fat at 142 pounds? Probably not, but still. If I calculated it out and lean mass stayed constant, what'd losing 20 pounds do the picture? Hm. (Finds calculator...) That's 14.8%, I think. How about losing 30 pounds? That'd be 9.4%. Hm. Interesting. Quite the difference.

So here's the numbers I promised you Mark.  I signed up for a weight loss challenge last winter not necessarily to lose weight but I wanted to play on the Tanita Body Composition Analyzer.  Even though they weighed us in private we also kept our clothes on and they deducted 1 pound for clothing.  We did have to remove our shoes and socks in order for the machine to work properly.  So here's the results...

                  Jan 23               Mar 18            May 14
Weight        150                    148               145
Fat %          23.0                   19.6             19.3  (desirable range 23.0-33.9)
Fat mass      34.4                   29.0              28.0

Marty's numbers
Weight        178                                          174
Fat %          13.0                                        10.7  (desirable range 13.0-24.9)
Fat mass      23.2                                         18.6

I'm not going to pretend I know what any of them mean or that I think they are very accurate but it was fun.  It also gave us muscle mass, bone mass, water %, BMI etc.    It does appear that most if not all of our weight was lost in the form of fat...

Nice job on the core work btw...

Hey, Nancy! Those are some interesting numbers! It shows to me how a little bit of weight loss can go a long way in changing the body fat percentage. And that Marty must be a pretty lean fellah.

To make these numbers even more interesting...my BMI ended up at 23.4 and Marty's at 25.6.  Anything over 25 is considered overweight.  I find the difference between the desirable body fat% for males and females interesting but even more interesting is our body fat% related to our BMI.  Just goes to show that one number does not by itself give you a very good picture.

Numbers were all very interesting and made for some fun conversation for a few days (the kids participated as well) but I'm not sure they provided much useful information.

Hope you're enjoying the last few days of summer like weather...

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:

###

So I decided to try one of those grocery store body fat measuring do-dads today, since I've never had it done before. It weighed me fully dressed (the notion of stripping nekkid in the grocery store amazingly didn't occur to me until just now) and gave me an irritatingly high number (188). Oh well. Work to do. Anyway, the fat measuring part told me I'm at 23.72% body fat, 76.28% lean mass. That's considered "acceptable" by the machine, if not "healthy" - which is 18% or less.

That works out to 45 pounds of fat, 143 pounds of lean mass. That's a fascinating set of numbers. Does it mean that I'd be 0% body fat at 142 pounds? Probably not, but still. If I calculated it out and lean mass stayed constant, what'd losing 20 pounds do the picture? Hm. (Finds calculator...) That's 14.8%, I think. How about losing 30 pounds? That'd be 9.4%. Hm. Interesting. Quite the difference.

So here's the numbers I promised you Mark.  I signed up for a weight loss challenge last winter not necessarily to lose weight but I wanted to play on the Tanita Body Composition Analyzer.  Even though they weighed us in private we also kept our clothes on and they deducted 1 pound for clothing.  We did have to remove our shoes and socks in order for the machine to work properly.  So here's the results...

                  Jan 23               Mar 18            May 14
Weight        150                    148               145
Fat %          23.0                   19.6             19.3  (desirable range 23.0-33.9)
Fat mass      34.4                   29.0              28.0

Marty's numbers
Weight        178                                          174
Fat %          13.0                                        10.7  (desirable range 13.0-24.9)
Fat mass      23.2                                         18.6

I'm not going to pretend I know what any of them mean or that I think they are very accurate but it was fun.  It also gave us muscle mass, bone mass, water %, BMI etc.    It does appear that most if not all of our weight was lost in the form of fat...

Nice job on the core work btw...

Hey, Nancy! Those are some interesting numbers! It shows to me how a little bit of weight loss can go a long way in changing the body fat percentage. And that Marty must be a pretty lean fellah.

To make these numbers even more interesting...my BMI ended up at 23.4 and Marty's at 25.6.  Anything over 25 is considered overweight.  I find the difference between the desirable body fat% for males and females interesting but even more interesting is our body fat% related to our BMI.  Just goes to show that one number does not by itself give you a very good picture.

Numbers were all very interesting and made for some fun conversation for a few days (the kids participated as well) but I'm not sure they provided much useful information.

Hope you're enjoying the last few days of summer like weather...

We celebrated ... by having a garage sale! Whee! Actually, it was rainy and cool the first day, but we had the most customers then. It was nicer Saturday with fewer people. The summer-like temps caught us by surprise on Sunday as we were cleaning things up. I popped open the garage door and got a facefull of warm air. Wait. What? Very weird.

But I did take advantage of the non-chilly weather today, as you'll see.

I agree on the numbers. They're interesting for conversation or tracking changes over time but they're not something to obsess over.

Hope you're getting a chance to enjoy your CIM training. The cooler weather (well, once it happens), should make it more pleasant.

Trails: 4.78 miles (gps corrected)

Weather: Sunny and warm. 72° Gear: Altras, shorts, T. Fuel: Carried water.

Was in the need for some "forest bathing" (the latest faddy name for how good it feels to reconnect with nature), so I headed over to our local forest for the first time in months. I've been keeping to roads to play it safe with my ankle, but I've missed it.

The run itself was good, with no ankle issues whatsoever. I mixed it up, with some harder and easier bits. I've noticed they've added some new side trails through the woods. I'll have to explore them sometime.

I pushed it up a couple of pretty steep hills, hitting heart rate levels that once again proves the max HR formulas are wrong for me. I was working hard but far from gasping for breath. It did get me good and fatigued by the time I finished, though. Which was the goal.

Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for run: 141. Max: 172

Mark B wrote:Trails: 4.78 miles (gps corrected)

Weather: Sunny and warm. 72° Gear: Altras, shorts, T. Fuel: Carried water.

Was in the need for some "forest bathing" (the latest faddy name for how good it feels to reconnect with nature), so I headed over to our local forest for the first time in months. I've been keeping to roads to play it safe with my ankle, but I've missed it.

The run itself was good, with no ankle issues whatsoever. I mixed it up, with some harder and easier bits. I've noticed they've added some new side trails through the woods. I'll have to explore them sometime.

I pushed it up a couple of pretty steep hills, hitting heart rate levels that once again proves the max HR formulas are wrong for me. I was working hard but far from gasping for breath. It did get me good and fatigued by the time I finished, though. Which was the goal.

Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for run: 141. Max: 172

Wow, hey!  I ran 5 today when it was dark and 72 degrees!  But, no hills.  Why don't you bump your HR Max 5 or 10?

ounce wrote:Wow, hey!  I ran 5 today when it was dark and 72 degrees!  But, no hills.  Why don't you bump your HR Max 5 or 10?

Dark and 72, and muggy, too, I bet! Blech.

I make reference to my "official" HR Max to mock the tyranny of statistical averages. My actual HR max hit 193 during a 5K race a few years back. I bet it's a few bpm lower than that now, but not the 168 that the "official" charts say, or even the 172 that allegedly was the result of a treadmill test. I saw my HR well into the 180s, but the guy doing the test must have assumed it was an error and took a lower number.

Walk: 2 miles

Weather: Overcast, mild with a nice breeze. 69°

An abbreviated lunchtime walk, sort of a recovery effort after yesterday's time on the trails. Felt good!

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Wow, hey!  I ran 5 today when it was dark and 72 degrees!  But, no hills.  Why don't you bump your HR Max 5 or 10?

Dark and 72, and muggy, too, I bet! Blech.

I make reference to my "official" HR Max to mock the tyranny of statistical averages. My actual HR max hit 193 during a 5K race a few years back. I bet it's a few bpm lower than that now, but not the 168 that the "official" charts say, or even the 172 that allegedly was the result of a treadmill test. I saw my HR well into the 180s, but the guy doing the test must have assumed it was an error and took a lower number.

Nice job on the visit to the forest trails...and the pleasant recovery walk the next day.

The HR stuff is all very confusing to me.  Maybe it's because like you, my heart rate often goes higher than what my maximum is supposed to be.  It's even more confusing now that I'm on beta blockers.  I will admit that it doesn't go as high as it used to.  I always used to blame it on a malfunctioning HR monitor but I wonder?  Guess it just goes to show that we're all very different and don't fit into their molds.  I guess you have to add in the highs and lows to calculate the "average person".

Fall is coming...take care...

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Wow, hey!  I ran 5 today when it was dark and 72 degrees!  But, no hills.  Why don't you bump your HR Max 5 or 10?

Dark and 72, and muggy, too, I bet! Blech.

I make reference to my "official" HR Max to mock the tyranny of statistical averages. My actual HR max hit 193 during a 5K race a few years back. I bet it's a few bpm lower than that now, but not the 168 that the "official" charts say, or even the 172 that allegedly was the result of a treadmill test. I saw my HR well into the 180s, but the guy doing the test must have assumed it was an error and took a lower number.

Nice job on the visit to the forest trails...and the pleasant recovery walk the next day.

The HR stuff is all very confusing to me.  Maybe it's because like you, my heart rate often goes higher than what my maximum is supposed to be.  It's even more confusing now that I'm on beta blockers.  I will admit that it doesn't go as high as it used to.  I always used to blame it on a malfunctioning HR monitor but I wonder?  Guess it just goes to show that we're all very different and don't fit into their molds.  I guess you have to add in the highs and lows to calculate the "average person".

Fall is coming...take care...

I think the truth of Max HR numbers is that all the formulas are based on statistics. Overall, they're probably pretty accurate for the entire population. But for individuals, not so much. The best, most accurate way to find your Max HR is through a test -- like your HR in the last tenth mile of a hard-run 5K. (Provided your cardiologist is okay with that, of course.)

I don't think running coaches care much about Max HRs because they don't really have that big a bearing on the sort of training you need to do to achieve fitness goals. The numbers may not be perfectly optimized using the formulas -- but for most people, they're probably close enough.

Fall is coming! I'm usually not wild about a return to rainy 40-something runs, but after a summer on the disabled list, I'm glad to take it.

Barefoot Run: 3.1 miles

Weather: Mostly sunny, mild. 55° Gear: Bare feet, shorts, T. (Yes, I felt a little chilly at the start, but I warmed up quickly.)

My toes have been wanting to breathe free lately, so I opted for a barefoot run through the neighborhood this morning. I need to get my form back, and this is one of the best ways I know how. Besides, it's fun.

I felt a little creaky the first mile, but it got better as I warmed up. I had one minor toe scuff, which reminded me that I need to remember to lift my toes before landing! Asphalt is an unforgiving coach.

This wasn't a low heart rate affair. I noticed that my body seemed to lock into a pace, so I went with it. I ran 10:19, 10:13, 10:08 for the 3.0 and did the last 0.1 at a 9:17 pace. Not bad, though I look forward to feeling more relaxed during the run. That'll come with additional practice.

Average HR for entire run: 142. MaxHR: 156

Mark - see if you can watch this where Phil Maffetone talks about carbs and ketones.  It'll be up for about 9 hours and 45 minutes.  The talk lasts 85 minutes.  I'm in the early part of the talk.

http://ketosummit.com/video-page-phil-maffetone/

ounce wrote:Mark - see if you can watch this where Phil Maffetone talks about carbs and ketones.  It'll be up for about 9 hours and 45 minutes.  The talk lasts 85 minutes.  I'm in the early part of the talk.

http://ketosummit.com/video-page-phil-maffetone/

Listening to it now. Very interesting.

(85 minutes later...)

Okay, that was an understatement. That was fascinating. Thanks for giving me the chance to see it before it was taken down.

Lots of things to consider, but it delves into areas I had suspected over the years. It also means that I eat way too much "junk" - and offers some ideas for changes that could help a lot over the long term.

One thing that struck me is that he didn't seem to advocate being in a constant state of ketosis, unless I misunderstood him. Just dialing the proper level of low-glycemic carbohydrates for our bodies.

Anyway, much to think about. Thanks.

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Mark - see if you can watch this where Phil Maffetone talks about carbs and ketones.  It'll be up for about 9 hours and 45 minutes.  The talk lasts 85 minutes.  I'm in the early part of the talk.

http://ketosummit.com/video-page-phil-maffetone/

Listening to it now. Very interesting.

(85 minutes later...)

Okay, that was an understatement. That was fascinating. Thanks for giving me the chance to see it before it was taken down.

Lots of things to consider, but it delves into areas I had suspected over the years. It also means that I eat way too much "junk" - and offers some ideas for changes that could help a lot over the long term.

One thing that struck me is that he didn't seem to advocate being in a constant state of ketosis, unless I misunderstood him. Just dialing the proper level of low-glycemic carbohydrates for our bodies.

Anyway, much to think about. Thanks.

You're right.  There are evolving different layers (or commitments) of LC/HF, depending on what one wants to do or commit to achieve the goals.  Some now realize that fat is not the demon it has been treated since the '70s, even saturated fat from grass-fed or pasture raised cattle and pigs.

But it will never be mainstream or blessed by the US govt because there's so much lobbying and food industry interests to keep the status quo.  In the end, that means those on the short end of the income stream will continue eating like they are.

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Mark - see if you can watch this where Phil Maffetone talks about carbs and ketones.  It'll be up for about 9 hours and 45 minutes.  The talk lasts 85 minutes.  I'm in the early part of the talk.

http://ketosummit.com/video-page-phil-maffetone/

Listening to it now. Very interesting.

(85 minutes later...)

Okay, that was an understatement. That was fascinating. Thanks for giving me the chance to see it before it was taken down.

Lots of things to consider, but it delves into areas I had suspected over the years. It also means that I eat way too much "junk" - and offers some ideas for changes that could help a lot over the long term.

One thing that struck me is that he didn't seem to advocate being in a constant state of ketosis, unless I misunderstood him. Just dialing the proper level of low-glycemic carbohydrates for our bodies.

Anyway, much to think about. Thanks.

You're right.  There are evolving different layers (or commitments) of LC/HF, depending on what one wants to do or commit to achieve the goals.  Some now realize that fat is not the demon it has been treated since the '70s, even saturated fat from grass-fed or pasture raised cattle and pigs.

But it will never be mainstream or blessed by the US govt because there's so much lobbying and food industry interests to keep the status quo.  In the end, that means those on the short end of the income stream will continue eating like they are.

Thanks for posting that Doug.  I saw it and was able to watch a few minutes before I headed out to thrash carrot seed.  I got in late but was able to watch more while I was putting together a late dinner...distracted watching but still better than nothing.  I missed the last few minutes.  Interesting to say the least.

So my go to snacks are a banana...maybe not so good?...cashews...probably better...and a slice of full fat cheddar cheese (Tillamook of course)  .

I will admit that this raised more questions than it answered.  Yes, I feel a bit less guilty about some of the things I eat but if I continue to eat fruit and some white flour and sugar does this negate the benefits?

Wish I'd been able to watch the whole thing and concentrate a bit more...

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Mark - see if you can watch this where Phil Maffetone talks about carbs and ketones.  It'll be up for about 9 hours and 45 minutes.  The talk lasts 85 minutes.  I'm in the early part of the talk.

http://ketosummit.com/video-page-phil-maffetone/

Listening to it now. Very interesting.

(85 minutes later...)

Okay, that was an understatement. That was fascinating. Thanks for giving me the chance to see it before it was taken down.

Lots of things to consider, but it delves into areas I had suspected over the years. It also means that I eat way too much "junk" - and offers some ideas for changes that could help a lot over the long term.

One thing that struck me is that he didn't seem to advocate being in a constant state of ketosis, unless I misunderstood him. Just dialing the proper level of low-glycemic carbohydrates for our bodies.

Anyway, much to think about. Thanks.

You're right.  There are evolving different layers (or commitments) of LC/HF, depending on what one wants to do or commit to achieve the goals.  Some now realize that fat is not the demon it has been treated since the '70s, even saturated fat from grass-fed or pasture raised cattle and pigs.

But it will never be mainstream or blessed by the US govt because there's so much lobbying and food industry interests to keep the status quo.  In the end, that means those on the short end of the income stream will continue eating like they are.

Thanks for posting that Doug.  I saw it and was able to watch a few minutes before I headed out to thrash carrot seed.  I got in late but was able to watch more while I was putting together a late dinner...distracted watching but still better than nothing.  I missed the last few minutes.  Interesting to say the least.

So my go to snacks are a banana...maybe not so good?...cashews...probably better...and a slice of full fat cheddar cheese (Tillamook of course)  .

I will admit that this raised more questions than it answered.  Yes, I feel a bit less guilty about some of the things I eat but if I continue to eat fruit and some white flour and sugar does this negate the benefits?

Wish I'd been able to watch the whole thing and concentrate a bit more...

Those are all great questions, Nancy. I think refined flour and sugar should be avoided as much as possible in this approach, but beyond that, Maffetone would add that it really comes down to what your body can tolerate. You can only determine that through careful experimentation. That's why he talks so much about his two-week test. In that, you go pretty much carb-free and note how you feel after two weeks. If you feel the same as before the test, then your body is not maladapted to carbohydrates. If you feel better after the test, though, that's a suggestion that something is out of whack. That's when you carefully add carbs back -- one thing at a time, sparingly -- to see if the symptoms of carbohydrate intolerance return. That lets you find out what works and what doesn't. It becomes very customized to your own body.

I think it's a great idea, and Alita and I had good luck with a similar approach about 12 years ago when we did the South Beach Diet. (Which is more a shift in eating than a "diet" per se.) We've drifted away from it since then, to our detriment, and keep talking about trying to get back to something like it again. It's challenging, though, because it's more expensive and labor-intensive -- which is tough given crappy hours and erratic work schedules.

If you're curious about what Maffetone says about it, I think he has links to the two-week test and all that on his website. It's also in several of his books.

Mark B wrote:

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Mark - see if you can watch this where Phil Maffetone talks about carbs and ketones.  It'll be up for about 9 hours and 45 minutes.  The talk lasts 85 minutes.  I'm in the early part of the talk.

http://ketosummit.com/video-page-phil-maffetone/

Listening to it now. Very interesting.

(85 minutes later...)

Okay, that was an understatement. That was fascinating. Thanks for giving me the chance to see it before it was taken down.

Lots of things to consider, but it delves into areas I had suspected over the years. It also means that I eat way too much "junk" - and offers some ideas for changes that could help a lot over the long term.

One thing that struck me is that he didn't seem to advocate being in a constant state of ketosis, unless I misunderstood him. Just dialing the proper level of low-glycemic carbohydrates for our bodies.

Anyway, much to think about. Thanks.

You're right.  There are evolving different layers (or commitments) of LC/HF, depending on what one wants to do or commit to achieve the goals.  Some now realize that fat is not the demon it has been treated since the '70s, even saturated fat from grass-fed or pasture raised cattle and pigs.

But it will never be mainstream or blessed by the US govt because there's so much lobbying and food industry interests to keep the status quo.  In the end, that means those on the short end of the income stream will continue eating like they are.

Thanks for posting that Doug.  I saw it and was able to watch a few minutes before I headed out to thrash carrot seed.  I got in late but was able to watch more while I was putting together a late dinner...distracted watching but still better than nothing.  I missed the last few minutes.  Interesting to say the least.

So my go to snacks are a banana...maybe not so good?...cashews...probably better...and a slice of full fat cheddar cheese (Tillamook of course)  .

I will admit that this raised more questions than it answered.  Yes, I feel a bit less guilty about some of the things I eat but if I continue to eat fruit and some white flour and sugar does this negate the benefits?

Wish I'd been able to watch the whole thing and concentrate a bit more...

Those are all great questions, Nancy. I think refined flour and sugar should be avoided as much as possible in this approach, but beyond that, Maffetone would add that it really comes down to what your body can tolerate. You can only determine that through careful experimentation. That's why he talks so much about his two-week test. In that, you go pretty much carb-free and note how you feel after two weeks. If you feel the same as before the test, then your body is not maladapted to carbohydrates. If you feel better after the test, though, that's a suggestion that something is out of whack. That's when you carefully add carbs back -- one thing at a time, sparingly -- to see if the symptoms of carbohydrate intolerance return. That lets you find out what works and what doesn't. It becomes very customized to your own body.

I think it's a great idea, and Alita and I had good luck with a similar approach about 12 years ago when we did the South Beach Diet. (Which is more a shift in eating than a "diet" per se.) We've drifted away from it since then, to our detriment, and keep talking about trying to get back to something like it again. It's challenging, though, because it's more expensive and labor-intensive -- which is tough given crappy hours and erratic work schedules.

If you're curious about what Maffetone says about it, I think he has links to the two-week test and all that on his website. It's also in several of his books.

I bought a couple of his books and I'm working on them...just haven't had a lot of time so I haven't gotten through them yet.  It's all very interesting and I know that I could improve my/our diet.  It's just a matter of how much effort I want to put in.  It's pretty tough when Emma comes down and picks apples from our tree and then brings us pie!!

I keep forgetting to ask how Alita's foot is healing?

I was surprised that Maffetone was even commenting on it.  His opinion could become a workable solution to many more people than to go more hard core.  I do think that a greater limitation of added sugar will help a great deal.  This includes Gu and Larabars, as well.  Cooking more from scratch would help a good deal, as well. 

Triglycerides under 100 shows a limitation on processed carbs.  A1C under 5.5 shows that you're not pre-diabetic.

There's another speaker named Dr. Tim Noakes.  He's a South African doctor who is diabetic, so he has to keep his carbs low.  He's written a few running books on nutrition with LC/HF.

Maybe in 20 years saturated fat won't have as much of a stigma.  But it'll take acceptance by the AHA, which means the companies that make statins will have to stop brow beating cardiologists.

Forgot to mention the Low pressure and Pacific front that came ashore Saturday or Sunday on y'all will be an important factor on keeping Hurricane Matthew in the Atlantic.  Hurricanes always take the path of least resistance, which is why it turned north over the weekend as a result of our cool front blocked it from coming any further west.

So y'alls front keeps it off land.

ounce wrote:I was surprised that Maffetone was even commenting on it.  His opinion could become a workable solution to many more people than to go more hard core.  I do think that a greater limitation of added sugar will help a great deal.  This includes Gu and Larabars, as well.  Cooking more from scratch would help a good deal, as well. 

Triglycerides under 100 shows a limitation on processed carbs.  A1C under 5.5 shows that you're not pre-diabetic.

There's another speaker named Dr. Tim Noakes.  He's a South African doctor who is diabetic, so he has to keep his carbs low.  He's written a few running books on nutrition with LC/HF.

Maybe in 20 years saturated fat won't have as much of a stigma.  But it'll take acceptance by the AHA, which means the companies that make statins will have to stop brow beating cardiologists.

My triglycerides have bounced around a lot, depending on diet.

Prior to diet/lifestyle changes in 2005, they were 131. In the midst of South Beach changes, they fell to 59. Five years later, after lapsing quite a bit, they bounced up to 156 then fell to 94 five years after that as I started eating better. Not sure what they are now. Not sure they ever checked A1C.

Noakes is an interesting character. He used to be all-in on the carbs-as-fuel approach, but has since done a 180 and gone LC/HF. He also thinks we hydrate too much.

And since Uncle Phil (Maffetone, not Knight, or Banks) got me thinking...

---

Low HR Run: 90 minutes (6.94 miles)

Weather: Cool and cloudy. 51-54° Gear: Topos, shorts, T, jacket/vest. No fuel or fluids during run.

It almost felt cold when I started out this morning, which was ridiculous but not unexpected. It's been a while since I ran when it was almost in the 40s. It's good knowing that I'll warm up as long as I get moving.

I needed to make this a low HR run. I've been pushing paces and HRs lately, and I know that most of my miles need to be fully aerobic. I needed to remind my legs that they can go slow enough to make it work.

Mission... accomplished. I slowed down quite a bit in the 90-mintue run (from 11:24 to 12:55/mi), with some brief walking breaks to keep my drifting HR in check, but I kept my average close to my target of 138 throughout. I'd rather it be AT 138, or lower, but this was good for a start.

Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for entire run: 134

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:I was surprised that Maffetone was even commenting on it.  His opinion could become a workable solution to many more people than to go more hard core.  I do think that a greater limitation of added sugar will help a great deal.  This includes Gu and Larabars, as well.  Cooking more from scratch would help a good deal, as well. 

Triglycerides under 100 shows a limitation on processed carbs.  A1C under 5.5 shows that you're not pre-diabetic.

There's another speaker named Dr. Tim Noakes.  He's a South African doctor who is diabetic, so he has to keep his carbs low.  He's written a few running books on nutrition with LC/HF.

Maybe in 20 years saturated fat won't have as much of a stigma.  But it'll take acceptance by the AHA, which means the companies that make statins will have to stop brow beating cardiologists.

My triglycerides have bounced around a lot, depending on diet.

Prior to diet/lifestyle changes in 2005, they were 131. In the midst of South Beach changes, they fell to 59. Five years later, after lapsing quite a bit, they bounced up to 156 then fell to 94 five years after that as I started eating better. Not sure what they are now. Not sure they ever checked A1C.

Noakes is an interesting character. He used to be all-in on the carbs-as-fuel approach, but has since done a 180 and gone LC/HF. He also thinks we hydrate too much.

He thinks we hydrate too much with Gatorade, then hydrate at thirst.  Early in their careers, both Maffetone and Noakes were on to low carb as the way to go back in the 70's separately.  But didn't doubt those with more experience, so they let it go.

Mark B wrote:And since Uncle Phil (Maffetone, not Knight, or Banks) got me thinking...

---

Low HR Run: 90 minutes (6.94 miles)

Weather: Cool and cloudy. 51-54° Gear: Topos, shorts, T, jacket/vest. No fuel or fluids during run.

It almost felt cold when I started out this morning, which was ridiculous but not unexpected. It's been a while since I ran when it was almost in the 40s. It's good knowing that I'll warm up as long as I get moving.

I needed to make this a low HR run. I've been pushing paces and HRs lately, and I know that most of my miles need to be fully aerobic. I needed to remind my legs that they can go slow enough to make it work.

Mission... accomplished. I slowed down quite a bit in the 90-mintue run (from 11:24 to 12:55/mi), with some brief walking breaks to keep my drifting HR in check, but I kept my average close to my target of 138 throughout. I'd rather it be AT 138, or lower, but this was good for a start.

Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for entire run: 134

Cool.  How are the Topos working out?