Matt Metzgar

Running = Jumping Rope?

I was watching the Pose Running DVD the other day and reviewing the drills.  I soon realized that many, if not most of the drills, are similar to jump rope movements.  Many of the drill variations - hopping on one foot, hopping forward and back, side to side - are reminiscent of the drills you see kids do when jumping rope.

I found a couple of other things related to jumping or elastic recoil in regards to running.  Here's a section from "The Lore of Running" by Tim Noakes (citing research on turkeys):

"The muscle contraction was just enough to keep the tendon stretched when the foot was on the ground, thereby storing energy for the next stride.  As a result, the muscle shortened relatively little and used only a small amount of energy when the turkeys ran on flat surfaces.  Most of the work of running was done passively in the elasticity of the muscle and tendon."

A different piece of research looked at the contribution of plyometric leap distance with regards to 10k performance.  The study found that 74% of the variation in 10k time was due to differences in plyometric leap distance.  This is a remarkably high portion to be explained by just one factor.

I think that good runners utilize elastic recoil and end up bouncing along in an energy-efficient manner.  Inefficient runners try to muscle their way to faster speeds, by pushing off with muscle effort or pulling the body forward.  It's a given that people will have different levels of elastic recoil in their legs, due to differences in achilles tendon length and the arch of the foot.  Learning to properly use elastic recoil will likely lead to faster times and fewer injuries.

Weird Science

I saw this article about "feel good eating" on MSN the other day.  It's one of those articles that probably confuses the average person even more about what is proper eating.

The article notes that scientists have shown that snacking on quickly digested carbohydrates elevates levels of serotonin in the brain.  From this, the article then advises snacking on simple carbs in order to feel better.  But the article also notes that "you won't want to try this regimen if you have diabetes or are prediabetic." 

Why doesn't the article mention that this type of high-glycemic eating can increase the risk of diabetes?  Instead, it makes it sound like this type of quick-fix eating has no potential downsides.  Why not just recommend that people eat pure sugar in order to feel better?  That's way you'll get the boost in serotonin even quicker.

This type of journalism seems irresponsible to me.  If you're going to recommend certain eating practices, at least look at the research concering what will happen when people actually follow such advice.  

Unleaded

I saw this story a while back about lead exposure and developmental problems.  In previous studies, research has shown that children with high levels of lead in their blood had more problems as juveniles.  Now this newer study follows this connection all the way to the adult level.

The new research shows that exposure to lead from birth through age 7 significantly increased the chances of having an adult criminal record.  In this new study, researchers looked at lead exposure as child and the probability of eventually having an adult criminal record.  There was also a significant connection between lead exposure and violent crime in particular.

This is a very sad situation.  Lead paint in homes was phased out many years ago, but there are still older homes that contain lead.  This may be particularly true in poorer neighborhoods where the housing stock is quite dated. 

The CDC has a campaign underway to reduce elevated blood lead levels in all children by 2010.  More information on this program is available here.  The sooner this problem is removed, the better for everyone.

Diminishing Returns

One of the things I don't see discussed enough in terms of interval training is the quality of each interval.  For example, if you go out and run some intervals, which one is the more beneficial - the first or the last?

The first interval provides the most benefit, and there are probably diminishing returns after that.  In fact, I've wondered how few intervals you can perform and still get the majority of the benefits.  Tonight I was pretty tight on time, so I just walked and threw in a couple of short intervals (~ 100 meters) during the walk. 

If a person is trying to get into shape, I bet a couple of intervals interspersed with low-intensity work could dramatically improve fitness compared to only low-intensity work.

Asset Allocation

I think another scam in the investment world is the concept of "asset allocation."  Many companies charge for properly allocating or rebalancing a person's retirement portfolio over time.  From what I can tell, this isn't a very difficult task in the first place.

Based on what I've read, asset allocation is just this: as a person ages, they should shift money away from stocks and towards bonds.  This provides security and produces more consistent returns.  There are various stock-to-bond ratios out there, but a little homework can produce a good ratio. 

Here's a quote from Jack Bogle from earlier this year: "In 1999, ... I went to about 65 percent bonds and 35 percent stocks," he said. "I haven't made a single change in my asset allocation since 1999."

Bogle ran Vanguard for over 30 years and probably has a small fortune.  So here you have a person who is very wealthy and very knowledgeable about the investment industry, and what is his strategy for asset allocation?  Set it and forget it.  Yet I'm supposed to believe that someone who will charge me to manage my assets will give me better advice than Bogle (and many other pros who say the same thing)?  I don't think so.

Index Funds

I have been rereading "The Little Book of Common Sense Investing" by John Bogle.  Bogle is the founder and former chairman of Vanguard.  The book was really eye-opening for me in regards to the working of the financial industry.

In a nutshell, it's very, very hard to outperform an index fund - which is, in effect, buying the whole stock market.  Any gains made from active money management are usually wiped out by taxes and fees.  Therefore, for someone who is not a full-time investor, it's smart just to stick your money in an index fund and forget about it.

Tim Ferriss over at his blog just found out the same thing.  In this post, he managed to ask Warren Buffet what a young investor with a full-time job should do.  Buffet's response:  “I’d put it all in a low-cost index fund that tracks the S&P 500 and get back to work."

Here's another great quote, this one from Jack Meyer, who used to manage Harvard's endowment: "The investment business is a giant scam."

This is a situation where economic incentives work against people finding out the truth about investing.  No one is going to pay for (or charge for) the advice, "put your money in an index fund."  I mean, I just said it right there and I won't expect any checks in the mail.  Instead, you have people trying to sell this system or that system, buying and selling stocks, perhaps creating more excitement but ultimately producing lower returns.

It's bizarre that the investment sector is so huge, yet it's really not adding anything of value.  Businesses and capital generate profits.  The stock market simply allows investors to gain a share of this increase in wealth.  The middlemen try to extract money for themselves at the expense of the individual investor.  If you invest in an index fund, you get to directly tap the source of the increasing wealth, bypassing the middlemen and increasing your returns. 

Activator X

Here's an interesting post by Stephan about "Activator X".  Weston Price, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, belived that a combination of Vitamins A, D, and the mysterious Activator X was largely responsible for the excellent health in primitive societies.  It is now believed that Activator X is Vitamin K2.

The original article about the discovery of Activator X is here.  The article was compelling enough for me that I picked up some Vitamin K2 supplements at the store yesterday.  We'll see what effect it has.

The Tortoise and The Hare

Earlier today, there was a slow jogger at the track I go to.  My plan was to do some intermittent running - run fast for a bit, then walk a bit.  I have gone back to more intermittent running and less continuous running lately.

What surprised me was that I almost kept pace with the jogger, even though I was essentially running half a lap and walking half a lap.  I noticed this after the second lap, when I caught up to him right when I was finishing a run segment.  This continued for most of the workout.

Just in terms of pure fitness gains, you would have to say that the interval running would produce more benefits than the slow jogging I witnessed.  If you run faster than normal, your body will attempt to adapt.  Further, the higher intensity of running releases more growth hormone and other key hormones.

I'm sure that over a long distance this jogger could outlast me, just like the old tale about the tortoise and the hare.  The fable is sort of deceiving however, because it only measures one outcome - a long distance to cover.  I think most people would want to live their life more like a hare - springy, energetic, and capable of high intensity on occassion.  Even if this means not being the best at extended endurance tasks.

Aging and Power

I saw this new study that looked at power training older adults.  The study utilized explosive resistance training for women in their 60s and 80s.  The results showed improvements in both groups, and it also showed the training was well-tolerated.

This is great to see people up in their 80s still lifting weights.  The type of training they performed (explosive) was also a good idea, since explosive training can increase both strength and power.  It has been shown that losing muscle power puts subjects at a greater risk compared to losing only strength.

It just goes to show, it's never too late to start exercising.

Let The Good Times Roll

I was listening to an interview with an artist on the radio yesterday.  She was asked about her basic life philosophy, and she said something along the lines of, "I think we're here to have a good time.  I don't think we're here to suffer or anything like that."

I immediately thought: what a refreshing outlook!  And to say it with such openness and ease. There are so many martyr-driven philosophies out there that just make no sense to me.  Some believe that suffering is good, suffering builds character, or that suffering now leads to happiness in eternal life.  Nonsense!  A negative is a negative.  What humans have is the ability to rationalize events to fit things in their worldview.

Given the choice between a positive and a negative event, who in their right mind who choose a negative event?  I'll take all the positive events and good feelings I can get in this lifetime.  Besides, positive feelings often mean you are acting in evolutionary-beneficial ways.  So as long as I'm around, I say let the good times roll.