Friday Funny 1263: Funny "March For Science" Protest Signs

Here are some funny "March for Science" signs from last weekend (from a picdump site, buzzfeed, and good.is). Some of these make funny points:

This is my Ironman buddy's sign! Nice work Wedgie!












To get personal for a second: I'm Catholic and attend mass every Sunday, and I'm 100%
behind this. My beliefs regarding my God don't need to dictate laws that govern other people.


Ok, low blow. (Literally.) But a point about science and medicine.










Ha! (More United Airlines funnies HERE.)














Yessss! And this was here in MN! Go Granny!


(Jurassic Park reference in case you can't see the pictures too well.)

More funny things posted all day long on steveinaspeedo.tumblr.com.

Read more...

Don't Let Your Mind Screw You Over

Runner's World featured this study on their website 2 days ago. It's a quick read, and the writer makes some interesting points.

How the Nocebo Effect Can Torpedo Your Training
By: Alex Hutchinson

We all know that placebo effects can influence your response to training. Heck, I sometimes think that 50% of successful training is convincing yourself to buy into the right positive beliefs about whatever it is that you're doing. But what about placebo's evil twin, nocebo?

The nocebo effect is the negative effect which follows the administration of a nocebo, that is, of an inert pharmacological or procedural treatment, administered with or without deliberate damage intention. It represents the counterpart of the better known placebo effect, whereby a positive effect results from the activation of specific neural pathways by a sham procedure devoid of intrinsic therapeutic properties for the condition being treated.

That's from the intro of a new study in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, from researchers at the University of Turin in Italy. As they explain, the nocebo effect has been particularly well described for pain, as well as for other conditions like asthma and allergies, but it hasn't been explored much in the context of sports and training. So here's what they did.

With 70 volunteers, they conducted a series of experiments involving leg extension tests to exhaustion:

Before starting the experiments, the researchers applied an electrode to the quadriceps of each subject and performed a test to determine the threshold at which they started to feel the jolt of electricity. Then the subjects were told that, during the experiment, their quads would receive an electrical jolt just below that threshold of sensitivity -- so they wouldn't feel it, but (they were told) it would "increase their sense of fatigue by adding an external cause of weariness." In reality, no electricity was applied during the experiments.

The first experiment was simple. They started with a baseline test, lifting 50% of their 1-rep max until exhaustion; then, in a separate session, they did it again with the "nocebo" electrode applied to half the subjects. Sure enough, while the control group increased the number of extensions from 31.0 in the first session to 35.4 in the second session, an increase of 14.9% (probably due to familiarity with the procedure rather than training effects), the nocebo group decreased by 4.6%. They expected that it would feel harder, so it did.

The second experiment was quite a bit more complicated. Its goal was to distinguish between the effects of expectation (we're told that a pill or electrode will make us better or worse, so it does) and conditioning (we learn to associate a pill or electrode with better or worse feelings, and respond accordingly, like Pavlov's dogs salivating at the bell). This experiment involved four different sessions, and included secretly increasing the weight that the subjects were lifting during the second and third sessions so it would feel like the nocebo electrode was really making things much harder. In the end (to cut a long story short), this extra conditioning didn't make the nocebo any more powerful than the simple expectation used in the first study.

So what does this tell us? Interestingly, it suggests that nocebo effects are, if anything, more powerful than placebo effects, since you don't need to be "conditioned" to get the full effect:

[W]hen negative or potentially dangerous outcomes are involved, it may not be necessary to depend on first-hand experience, as during conditioning. Rather, human beings can rely on the evolutionary advantage provided by language, enabling them to integrate other people's experiences, as with verbal suggestions.

In other words, if someone tells you that something you're doing will make you slower, you'll believe it -- and in doing so, you'll make it true. This, of course, brings to mind all sorts of cliches ("If believe you can do it, you're right; if you believe you can't, you're also right"). But I think it's a message that is sometimes forgotten: when athletes begin to doubt themselves -- or their coaches -- it can spin into a self-fulfilling spiral of failure. I think that's a big part of the reason athletes who leave one coach to train with another often see such a big boost in performance: it's not just the positive beliefs associated with the new coach, it's also getting rid of the negative beliefs associated with the old one.

What do you think? I buy it.

Thoughts? I'll respond back to keep the dialog going.

Read more...

Pace Calculator Issues

This is not a rant. Repeat: this is NOT a rant. I don't get "fired up" about this, but it's just worth noting. And none of this is "ground-breaking" info - just my take on the topic.

Before the half marathon on Saturday, I was told by 2 people that I SHOULD be able to run a sub-1:20 half marathon based on my recent Meet of the Miles 1-mile time. And that's part of why Chad called me a sandbagger with my DREAM GOAL of a 1:25 finish. I hoped I could go 1:25, but sub-1:20 would have been impossible. But the numbers SAY I should be able to do that.

Here's what they're talking about: here are my equivalent race times from the McMillan Running Calculator that many of you are familiar with:

My 13.1 equivalent performance based on my 4:53 mile

The problem with that is that these predictions assume you've trained up for that distance in the same way you trained for the shorter run. Here's what it says on their site: "Do keep in mind that a 5K runner is unlikely to run the equivalent time in the marathon off of 5K training. The runner would obviously need to train for the marathon to accomplish this equivalent time." This is all obvious, but when I'm only putting in 20-25 miles / week (a lot of that in the past was pushing a stroller at Henry's pace), I can bust out a speedy 1 mile, but there's no way I can just say "Yep, now I should be able to run a 1:18 half." Also, if I trained the same way for the half as I did for the 1 mile, I'd get soooo injured soooo quickly. I cannot run as many miles as McMillan wants me to without getting hurt.

Just because I'm stupid, let's really test the McMillan Running Calculator. There are plenty of people on this planet right now that can run a 10-second 100 meters. According to McMillan, they'd SHATTER world records at the marathon distance if they "trained" for it:

A 1:54 MARATHON time for those that can do a 10 sec 100. Yeah, no prob.

Sure, that's a little "out there" of an example. But what about using Ryan Hall as an example. In April of 2011, Hall ran the Boston Marathon in 2:04:58. Then, in May, he came to town to run the TC 1 Mile. Here I am with Ryan and Sara Hall a few hours before the race:

The pace calculator said that he should be able to run a 3:42 mile based on his recent marathon time:

But Hall ran a disappointing 4:17.2 (and finished last place in the elite wave). That's a big difference.

And this highlights my issue.

Ryan Hall is "distance" trained, and he couldn't pull that speed out of his legs on his distance training.

I have a bit more "speed," but I don't have the endurance, so I can't run the longer races as fast as this calculator says I "should" be able to. I simply don't put in the miles. (Oh, and I'm NOT saying I have more speed than Hall... I just might have more "speed vs endurance" whereas Hall has more "endurance vs speed" based on our own abilities.)

I started this post by saying "this is not a rant" (even though I'm using the "rant" label at the bottom of this post), and what I mean is that I'm never really annoyed when people think I can run something at a certain pace because this calculator says I should be able to. It IS a good thing to look at when comparing the difference in some races. I use it quite often.

But the more miles between the comparison, the farther off it can be. You could get a good sense of your 5K time based on a 1 mile race (that's over 3x the distance, but it's only about 2 miles more). Same with comparing a 5K to get an anticipated 10K finish (2x the distance, and only 3.1 miles more). But a half marathon to a marathon is quite a jump - that's SUBSTANTIALLY different training that McMillan is asking you to do in order to hit their predicted time.

That's not all bad. And it's kinda obvious. But if you're just comparing possible race outcomes without MAJORLY changing your training, then it won't give you 100% accurate answers. And that's kinda where I fall. I didn't change many workouts going into the 1 mile race, and I just made sure to get in some long runs before my half marathon. All the "middle stuff" was about the same.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I talk to Coach Jen about some of these issues in this post from Sept of 2010. Here's just part of that post:

Here are some other numbers to back up my points. Below are 3 screenshots from the McMillan Running Calculator. They show my estimated times based on my back-to-back-to-back races this past spring: a 5K, a 4 mile, and a half marathon:

Estimates based on my 17:11 5K


Estimates based on my 22:42 4 mile


Estimates based on my 1:22:52 half marathon

Notice: My 5K time says that I could do a half marathon in 1:19:26, but that’s WAY FASTER than I could do.

On the flip-side, my half marathon time says that I should do a 5K in 17:56, but that’s WAY SLOWER than I just did.

I can go shorter and harder, but when I go longer, I end up easing back a little. (And I know, the McMillan Running Calculator is NOT an exact science. I HAVE heard things about needing to run a ton of miles to be able to hit your predicted McMillan times.)

BUT, for what it's worth, notice that the difference in a predicted marathon time between those 3 screenshots is just over 7 minutes... 7 minutes isn't THAT big of a difference in a marathon. At least I don't think so. I'd LOVE to have any of those times in a marathon!

And to make one more point in DEFENSE of the pace calculator: note the different 10-mile times it gave me above based on my 3 races: 59:49, 1:00:24, and 1:02:24. Those 3 races were in the spring of 2010, and I ran my best TC 10 Mile in the fall of 2010. I've been saying that I'm faster at the shorter races, so my 10-mile time SHOULD be somewhere between my 4-mile prediction of 1:00:24 and my half marathon prediction of 1:02:24. But being I worked with Coach Jen for 2 months leading up to the 2010 TC 10 Mile, she actually got me to put in the "distance specific" training where I was able to do a 59:05. So... I guess if you train for it like McMillan says... you CAN hit their predictions.

It's just that I so rarely train so specifically for 1 race. I guess that's my problem. :)

Any thoughts on working with a pace calculator?

Read more...

Reason #2,682 To Be a Triathlete

(The first 2,681 reasons have to do with semi-legitimate reasons for men to shave different parts of their body. But you already knew that.)

This image speaks for itself:

This image is part of an article that Laura McIntyre (a physiotherapist and 2:52 marathoner) recently wrote about. She noted that "20 weeks of resistance training in older adults can result in a 1 kg increase in lean body mass. This is in contrast to a 0.18 kg annual decline that often occurs with a sedentary lifestyle beyond 50 years of age."

Here's more of what Laura has to say:

Lifelong intense activity is encouraged. A Canadian study looked at highly trained lifelong (30+ years) runners and compared them to healthy recreationally active young and age-matched controls. They looked at the number of motor units which consist of one nerve together with all the muscle fibers it stimulates. Normally the number of motor units gradually declines with age. The masters runners had a greater number of motor units compared to their age-matched controls and a similar number compared to the young. The authors concluded that lifelong high-intensity physical activity has the potential to limit the loss of motor units associated with natural aging well into the 7th decade of life.

Older athletes are pushing the limits of what was previously thought impossible. At this years Scotiabank Toronto marathon 100 year old Fauja Singh finished the marathon and 80 year old Ed Whitlock finished in an astonishing 3:15. For most sports there is a well-maintained but declining sports performance well into the 60’s years of age. Rowing has shown well-maintained performances into the 70’s.

The view that at an advanced age, load-bearing intensity should be reduced in order to avoid injuries and chronic overuse is widespread and not supported by recent evidence. Healthy aging adults should be capable of safe participation. The risk of side effects is very low if the dose is adapted to the client. However, adults who are pregnant, frail, have a disability or a medical condition should consult a health professional to understand the types or amounts of physical activity appropriate for them based on their exercise capacity and specific health risks or limitations.

As is generally accepted for novice trainers of any age, resistance exercises should initially include a period of low volume and low intensity before gradually progressing over time. Once familiar with resistance exercises a classic training program consists of 3 to 4 sets of 10 to 15 repetitions at an intensity of 70 to 80% of a maximum lift where the maximum lift can be assumed. A selection of 8 to 10 exercises performed on 2 non-consecutive days per week is recommended. Optimal training in older adults is fundamentally similar to optimal training in younger adults.

Older adults may need more recovery days and reduced frequency of either high volume or high intensity training. Cross training might be particularly useful for the recovery days.

Lifelong exercise has many benefits. Get out there and enjoy your training.

Actually, that's the majority of what she had to say... I wanted to quote almost all of it. For more on this (including references), go to Laura McIntyre's article here.

Now, as she says, get out there and enjoy your training!

Read more...

Friday Funny 229: Fake Science

I love the site "Fake Science". Check out a few of these:

I always knew that about butter. And I suspected that about candy corn.

Check back around noon for the "Farm Animals" video!!!"

Read more...

Friday Funny 173: Gu's April Fools Joke

Last year, Gu had a pretty good April Fools joke. They "introduced" their new SAVORY line of gels:

This year, they did it again. No, they didn't have more "meaty" gels.

This year, they offered "DermaCharge."

DermaCharge claims to be a way to get your electrolytes and calories through osmosis. As a Gu athlete noted, "I don't have to worry about digestion or drinking - I just apply it and hit the gas!"

Here are the 6 "aromas":

"Intense Butter: Whipped up Euro-style!"
"Vigorous Yam: The scent that leads the pack"
"Sultry Cucumber: Scent of the Unstoppable One!"
"Tenacious Tomato: Go heirloom or go home!" *
"Furious Avocado: From 100% pure Calgary avocados"
"Slick Milk: Dairy-free and ready to smear"

* my favorite tag-line!

One of the last lines on Gu's website is my favorite. Here's the entire last paragraph:

Some competing companies have claimed that no performance energy products should contain any amount of "dreaded" simple sugar, like naturally occurring fruit-based fructose, found in much maligned foods as bananas, oranges and the cute little kiwis which are so hard to peel. GU Energy labs vehemently opposes such dangerously casual, "armchair" science and has packed DermaCharge with 500% of the recommended daily allowance of pure white table sugar suspended in a coco-shea butter fix. It's sweet AND smooth. Plus, DermaCharge goes on easy and stays put - really stays put. In fact, DermaCharge is designed to stay on for an entire TransPolar expedition - think Shackleton - normal soap will NOT remove DermaCharge - only a 4:1 mixture of seal sweat and salmon scales will remove it.

Nice. Well played, Gu. After 2 funny April Fools Jokes, I can't wait for next year...

p.s. For being "a good sport," if you go to the Gu "DermaCharge" page, you can sign up to win a 10-pack of their new Gu Brew Tabs (which ACTUALLY exist). Go check it out.

Read more...