DrOctagon

And it only fires the laser once. The fire that starts does the rest.

Agreed. The message would be way too earnest without the absurdist elements.

Come to think of it getting frustrated with our interaction with inanimate objects is completely absurd. DE is like the opposite of slapstick.

100% agree on Black Swan. Taleb sure loves Taleb.

This works for me in most cases: https://tailwindcss.com/docs/optimizing-for-production#writi...

Even before reading the article I took the ‘should’ in the headline as an encouragement rather than as a command.

Of course! Thank you. My rowing days are long behind me but when everything comes together there truly is no sport like it!

Thank you for all that detail! A tangential question: At elite levels how well does performance on an ergo translate to on water performance? I rowed reasonably successfully at a junior level and I was much faster in a boat than others that would kick my butt on an ergo. This was always explained away as better technique. I’d be interested to know at a level where everyone has great technique if ergo/boat performance is more consistent.

Exactly! Offering to buy food rather than give the money they’ve asked for is just the worst kind of paternalism.

Quoting Zatopek: "Pain is a merciful thing – if it lasts without interruption, it dulls itself."

The confidence I gained from shaving my head far outweighed any real/perceived loss of attractiveness. Walking around trying to hide the fact I was going bald was soul destroying. Shaving it was owning it and it honestly set me free.

Not a deep answer like the others but watch the kids TV show ‘Bluey’. I won’t spoil it by trying to explain, but the mum and dad (dogs) do an amazing job of picking up on and embracing their kids games. It’s impossible not to have some of it rub off on you after watching a few episodes.

Try the episodes ‘Fairies’ and ‘Stumpfest’.

I grew up in the city I think you’re referring to I still remember approaching the city from the south and seeing the whole valley choked with smoke .

They're also popular among the hobbyist 3d printing community. Buy two, stack them on top of each other, then use Plexiglas sheets (or similar) between the legs of the top one and you have a cheap solution for enclosing a 3d printer.

I do this for Grand Designs (and similar) shows.

I love Lou's videos. Highly recommended.

One hundred and thirty odd (provable) generations of family history blown up. Fifteen hundred generations of continual occupation gone.

Or Lloyd Christmas

Hedonism doesn’t need to be conflated with bad behaviour or rebelliousness. I think a splash if it now and then before you have too many responsibilities should be encouraged.

Crunchy on the outside, chewy protein center.

Just finished a job search with Vue as the framework I have most experience in. Can confirm 95% of jobs seem to be React. Vue seems to be seen as a good option for moving away from sort of previous mess or something that backend/'full stack' devs can pick up quickly.

The senior jobs from my experience are there when the above goes awry without dedicated Vue (or even front end) knowledge.

It looks to me like a Rickroll.

Can't help but feel heartbroken for the kids in the photo at the top of that article.

At the time they did feel very much linked. You are right though, of course. I’m too old for any of that nonsense now anyway :)

I smoked when drinking (maybe 2-3 packs/week) throughout my 20s and if smoking wasn't a death wish I still would. I enjoyed smoking and I enjoyed the camaraderie of those who would escape outside the party or pub to escape the noise and have a chat and a smoke.

It's been a long time since I've smoked. I've lost people close to me and will soon lose another due to lung cancer or emphysema. Smoking sucks, but I do miss those quite moments outside in the cool air with a cigarette.

Privacy essentials 2020:

1. Use a VPN when connecting to public WiFi

2. DuckDuckGo for web searches

3. Use cash where possible

4. Billy Porter hat

Let’s set aside Roger specifically for the moment. But as a rough calculation lets call a mile 4 laps of a 400m oval. And to run four laps in 4 minutes you need to average 60 seconds/lap.

As you say a 400m is about as far as it is possible to sprint. I think physiologically it is shorter but, back of the envelope, 400m is close enough.

So if 400m is the maximum sprint distance every distance greater requires some measuring of effort? Even if to mere mortals people running a mile that fast look like they are sprinting, they are actually running sub maximally. If they weren’t they would slow dramatically before the end of the four laps because they have misjudged their effort.

A four minute miler can probably run one maximal 400m in the range of high 40s to low 50 seconds. So that would be their maximal intensity. Anyone trying to do that 10x would, like you say, be in a world of pain.

10 x 400m isn’t a maximal workout, it is what is needed to meet the demands of a four minute mile. A miler that fast could do 12, 15 or more if it was a ‘how many 400s can you do in 60 seconds’ competition. But it would have been a measured effort done to meet the demands of what he was trying to achieve, without injuring himself or getting sick etc.

Intervals are just a means to an end and a good coach know show to manipulate the length, intensity, rest between and any other variables to achieve the desired training effect on a runner.

For the record I can’t run one 60 second 400m :( I can run 10 at 75 seconds a pop because that’s what someone at my level of fitness needs to run to reach my goal 10k time.

Not to the marathon yet, but in the late 50s and 60s a guy from NZ, Arthur Lydiard, took inspiration from Bannisters training but proceeded it with a period of long slower running, a hill sprinting segment (HIIT like maybe), then the intervals, and a taper. His athletes won about 6 medals over two olympics including Peter Snell who won two golds and has a mile best of 3:54. Some consider this ‘linear periodisation’ through phases to reach a peak the start of modern training (that’s a discussion for another day).

Your question about the difference between what coaches do and science is an interesting one. A recent well regarded running book ‘The Science of Running’ spends the first half diving in to the science of biomechanics, metabolisation of oxygen, lactate clearance and all that good stuff. The second half focuses on the training of athletes to achieve success in specific races. The stereotype of ‘Coach’ as a barrel chested, loud mouthed, ‘run till you drop dead’ guy isn’t the reality these days. Most college and professional coaches have extensive exercise exercise physiology and/or biomechanics backgrounds etc.

The discovery of physiological thresholds like aerobic threshold, lactate threshold, VO2max etc has been invaluable to training but they are proxies for performance. And at the highest levels differences in performance can’t be explained away by slight differences in these markers.

Aren’t you pleased you’ve never sat next to me at a dinner party?

Lastly, HIIT and the marathon. HIIT is used in marathon training, but often not close to the actual event. One modern training philosophy is that to run a certain event you need a spectrum of qualities from pure speed at one end, the specific combination of speed and endurance you need in the middle, and pure endurance at the other end. When you start training you start at both ends and work towards the middle as you want to slowly close in on the specific blend of those ends of the spectrum. This would look like very fast high intensity hill sprints with long rest (10 x 10 seconds with 3 mins rest). The long rest is important as you need to be fully rested to produce max force. On the other end of the spectrum is easy jogging for maybe 2 - 2.5hrs. Slowly you drop the intensity but extend the distance of the fast stuff and speed up but drop the length of the slower stuff until you have the specific blend you need to perform.

This is applied slightly different in the marathon , but close enough. The problem with doing fast HIIT running close to a marathon is that a marathon is an extension of speed and endurance, but is also limited by the amount of glycogen that can be stored in muscle. Running aerobically burns the glycogen more slowly and if this speed is exceeded the rate of glycogen usage goes up. A big part of marathon training is running at a level where your body learns to use glycogen efficiently. If you do fast training you signal to your body that conservation of the glycogen isn’t important, and it can be sacrificed to run more quickly.

That said, for an untrained or slightly trained person who wants to run a fall marathon I’d 100% include intervals (maybe without the HI, we won’t agree on that) as the benefit they would get from them outweigh optimising fuel usage on the day.

I think we're debating different sides of the same coin. I 100%, no-doubt, hand on heart agree that running something like 10 x 400 as a VO2 workout will get you fit as part of a balanced training program.

The HIIT definition I'm familiar with is short intense bouts of near max intensity, followed by a short rest and then go again hard to failure. The first link above gets the details of Bannisters training correct and then recommends HIIT workouts that aren't remotely similar in duration. But even in the other links you've provided, and the ones I've looked up too, the definition of HIIT is different. I'm not going to argue that definition or we could be here forever.

I just make the distinction between interval training and HIIT. Interval training can be manipulated to be anything from long and completely aerobic to high intensity max sprints.

We're also cross purposes on the fact I'm talking about elite performance in an athletics race, and you are more interested in general hiking etc. I'm not saying one is better, or more valid, than the other, just that the approach to training one or the other is very different.

VO2 is a whole different kettle of fish. Generally V02 can be improved significantly in short periods, particularly in untrained athletes. Quite possibly HIIT or interval training works better over this short period. You are right that V02 is generally trained by intervals, no argument.

However: This is an interesting background on V02 max and why it might not be the most important marker of performance.

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-a...

V02 was given too much importance because it is easy to measure. Those with high V02, potentially have worse running efficiency.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2407295/why-higher-vo2max-isnt...

Your anecdote about training rings 100% true. Here's another article which covers a few topics including why HIIT works and doing the same 5mi jog daily doesn't.

https://www.highperformancewest.com/blog/2018/5/22/magness-s...

I basically agree with you on most points except definitions and that if long term athletic development for a specific distance event was your goal (it isn't) HIIT in isolation is not optimal.

All the best!

Thanks for replying, my comment above was a bit flippant and I just want to say well done on sticking with a training regime for such a long period of time. I've heard coaches say that, at a high level, being consistent and believing in your training approach is just as important as the specifics of the training.

As you say blending high intensity and low intensity is important. Either or is a false dichotomy that it is easy to get caught in, and high/low intensity is better than always training at a moderate intensity.

While effective for you, your session, doesn't resemble an interval session a miler might do. Stampfl had Bannister running things like 10 X ~440 yards at ~60 seconds a pop. Definitely influential, it is still a staple today, but it isn't HIIT.

From my reading (admittedly from a distance background), HIIT is no substitute for long term aerobic development. Aerobic development comes from longer stints at easy paces, through to intervals at 10k pace or just below. HIIT will show results more quickly, but it is a dead end. A 5k race is >88% aerobic, there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way.

If HIIT training is what boosts endurance, why don't any elite marathoners train in this way? Why do they run ~100 mi or more each week, mostly at a low intensity?

None to Run looks great! The slower the progression the better for beginning runners in my (also totally unprofessional) opinion too.

As a general comment, shin splints is the classic beginners too-much-too-soon running injury. Experienced runners get a whole range of other injuries, but rarely shin splints. The only time is after they take a break and try and come back too quickly (notice the pattern).