Posts by megsambit

For a short time, I ran with my Shuffle (both generations), and neither was very annoying by itself.  The new one is nice because you can clip it somewhere.

But I found that I would change my pace to suit the song, not change the song to match my pace.  It was a distraction for me, and it made my runs more difficult.

So now I go without.  Even on those very long, solo runs.

Facebook

Monkeys or Robots?

Original Post by pgeorgian:

for convenience, i buy the roasted chickens from the grocery store, strip them down (but not too thoroughly), and make stock from the carcasses.  i throw in half an onion, a couple of carrots, celery, bay leaf, half a lime, whatever else might by lying around.  add enough water to just cover the carcass(es), and simmer for several hours.

That's a great trick, and you can always use the meat for lunches, a chicken salad, soups, etc.  :-)

I like chicken feet for stock, but I think most people would have trouble finding them or would be afraid of them, or maybe both.  They make a very gelatinous broth, which translates to a luscious mouth feel.  And they're cheap.

My usual approach is to lay off running for about 3 days, and then to see how it feels.  If it's still bugging me, I go to the doctor.  While I'm recovering, I use ice and anti-inflammatories.  I would try walking or some other lower impact activity just to keep the muscle working.

If you're still in pain when that long run comes along, keep in mind that missing one long run is not going to destroy your marathon, even if it's the last long run before your taper begins.  Better to play it safe than to risk worsening the injury.  A true muscle tear will take longer than 3 weeks to heal.

Good luck!

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by megsambit:

I dislike those recommendations because they never clarify what type of exercise they mean.  I know they say "moderate to vigorous," but one man's moderate is another man's extremely vigorous--they should really give examples.

this is precisely why they don't give examples: my 5k is much more taxing than a marathon runner's 5k.  exertion is relative to fitness, so effort is individually determined.  if you feel like your effort is vigorous and you sustain that for 45 minutes, does it really matter what that looks like objectively?

i don't understand what the gripe is in this thread.  exercise is good; sitting on your ass is bad; and mary's recommendations are for "most people."  nobody's going to bang on your door and haul you off to boot camp if you only exercise 5 hours a week.

Maybe I've been reading the articles incorrectly all this time, but my interpretation was that the recommendations were absolute, not relative.  And actually, I read one article that was cited here earlier, and the researchers had provided a big table showing different activities (sometimes even subdivided, e.g. walking and running into different paces) and how they fell.

My health would not suffer if I cut back my running.  Would it be harder for me to maintain my weight?  Well, maybe, but I run enough that it's often a struggle to eat enough calories per day...  Even if I halved my workouts, I'd still need more than 2000 calories per day on average.

And to the OP, I run five days a week.  Four of those days, my runs are 45-60 minutes.  The other is a long run day, taking me around 2 hours on average.  I also try to include some strength exercises, but I'm currently struggling to find time/motivation for them.  I think that if my husband weren't so understanding and such a good fan and that if I had to commute longer to get to work, it'd be a real stretch to get that much exercise.

I dislike those recommendations because they never clarify what type of exercise they mean.  I know they say "moderate to vigorous," but one man's moderate is another man's extremely vigorous--they should really give examples.

I second gi-jane's recommendation.  I'd suggest buying Mark Bittman's "How to Cook Everything."  It has a huge number of recipes, and there are instructions and illustrations for even the most basic cooking skills.

Many online sites that have recipe databases give a difficulty rating to the recipes.  So a place like FoodNetwork can be a great resource.

If you look at cooking as applying methods rather than duplicating recipes, you'll soon be cooking whatever you want. 

I usually crave salty foods or cheese.  If I want something sweet, it's usually something that's sweet and salty, like a Payday bar, or something bittersweet, like good chocolate.

I also don't really like most chocolates or chocolate desserts.

So it's not just you. 

I'm 5'5" with a medium-large frame.  I started at 190.  I now weigh 140.  Up until the last five pounds or so, I ate 1700 calories or more per day, on average.  If my deficit was higher than 1000 calories, I'd eat more.  I run and lift weights for exercise.

Same

A complete protein is one that provides all essential amino acids (essential amino acids are those our bodies need but cannot produce on their own).  Lots of useful links from the Wikipedia article Protein in Nutrition.

If I remember correctly, soy beans are the only legume that are a complete protein.  Rice and beans together make a complete protein.  I don't remember other common combinations off the top of my head, and I feel too lazy to look it up, but the Wikipedia article should be a good start.

Original Post by brittypooo:

fluffydragon thats so interesting - i never even thought of that! i know we can eat fish etc raw (like sashimi) but chicken and lots of red meats have to be well cooked - is this because we physically cannot digest them raw, or because of illness from germs associated with our modern way of life?

Neither.  First, in general, it's a pretty bad idea to eat fish raw.  In the US, almost all sushi fish must be flash-frozen to help kill parasites.  In eating any sushi, it's essential that you have the freshest, healthiest possible fish.

Second, the reason that we need to ensure chicken is well cooked is because of bacteria and parasites that have always been there.  (But note that mass production may well make the animals sicker and more likely to infect us).  We probably figured out early on that people were less likely to get sick or die after eating meat if we cooked the meat first.  It took us much longer to be able to say why.

I'd be hesitant to accept any information about meat consumption and how it's digested in humans that has been spouted on the Internet without proof.  Part of the reason that nutrition seems so complicated is that one very small (less than five people) study will be conducted and will find some sort of correlation between two things.  Before the study ever gets expanded to a scientifically sound study, the media has picked up the correlation, and it becomes the next nutritional panancea or horror.  Witness the rise and fall of vitamin supplements in cancer prevention.

I would grill it or sear it in a pan and serve it with a little olive oil and parmesan as a side, or with a simple tomato sauce as a main dish.

The book should stay.

I don't want my tax-payer dollars paying to form committees to decide what high-school kids (some of whom are, themselves, tax payers and adults) can and can't read.  I'd be happy that they went into the library at all.

I love sausage.  I have tried the imitation types, and I think they're repulsive.  My solution is to view sausage as a condiment.  Instead of having one or two (4-oz) links as the star of my dinner, I'll use one link in a dish that serves four or even eight.

And I would recommend something similar to what people are saying about cheese (another love, but that one hits me in phases).  I'd say to buy the best sausage you can find.  Or make the sausage yourself.  Then, limit it to once a week, and view it as a real treat.