Matt Metzgar

It's A Wonderful Life

It turns out that Seneca Falls, NY claims it may have been the inspiration for the movie, "It's A Wonderful Life".  The movie references Western New York several times, mentioning the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, and Elmira.  In particular, it is said that the bridge scene in the movie may have been inspired by actual events at a steel bridge in Seneca Falls.  I drove over to have a look.

Also, here is a plaque that's on the bridge.

The town of Seneca Falls is pretty beat-down today.  Half of the stores on the main street were either empty or had signs for Alcoholics Anonymous.  However, the city does have a festival around Christmas where they reenact scenes from the movie.  I might check it out sometime.

Hobart & William Smith Colleges

  

Hobart and William Smith Colleges is a private school in Geneva, NY.

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

  

I went on a little field trip yesterday.  The show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" came to build a house in Western New York last year.  It was in Geneva, which is not too far from me.

When I came down the road, the house immediately jumped out at me.  It's a working-class neighborhood with lots of older homes.  (In fact, a house a few doors down was condemned!)  Anyways, it was a beautiful house, and from watching the episode it went to a very deserving family.

Running the Natural Way

I just finished the book, Born to Run, which is a fantastic read.  I will do a review and some other follow-up posts related to the book.  First things first, the book inspired me to immediately go out and do a bit of running.

I went to the local track and ran barefoot on the grass, right on the inside of the track.  I did a number of single laps at any easy pace, nothing too fast.  It is amazing the difference between running barefoot on the grass versus running in shoes on pavement.  Barefoot on grass, I seem to have no problems - the stride feels easy and there isn't much mental calculation about trying to run the right way.

The book discusses the problems with shoes from a number of different angles.  It has inspired me to finally bite the bullet and go buy some Vibram FiveFingers.  Last year, I noticed that even my minimal shoes, the Puma H Street, affected my running gait.  I'm hoping the Vibrams will keep my barefoot stride intact.

After finishing the book, I wondered: how many people have been cheated out of running by the shoe industry?  If barefoot/minimal shoes were the norm, there would be a lot fewer injured and disappointed runners. 

Summer Experiment #2

I just finished a workout after a 7-day rest.  It felt much, much better than waiting 17 days, as I just tried.  The strength was still there, but importantly the metabolic conditioning and feel for the exercise was still there as well.  I went a little lighter today, in line with variable resistance training, but I definitely felt I could have gone heavy if I needed to.

For me, this shows that there is a decomposition in terms of movement-specific skill and conditoning sometime after 7 days.  If someone is working with machines, as in Body By Science, they may be able to go longer without working out due to the lessened skill requirement.  However, they still not be able to maintain the metabolic conditioning without other types of workouts.

Running Versus Racing

 A reader sent me this interesting link a while back.  It shows that there is an optimal running speed for endurance running - a pace that has the lowest energy expenditure.  For the males tested, it turned out to be around 7 and a half minute miles, though there was variation due to body size and limb length.

The study really showed that there is a "sweet spot" for the speed of an endurance run.  At both faster and slower speeds than optimal, the metabolic cost increased.

All this led me to a thought: maybe it's not that distance running is so bad, but it's the attempts to run long distances faster and faster.  If humans ran long distances for endurance hunts, the focus was on endurance - not speed.

In modern culture though, the focus is on running long distances faster and faster, as well as training at these faster paces.  It could be that humans were built for moderate-speed marathons, but not high-speed marathons.

Today, the purpose of running is often to race, and over time get faster.  While this idea seems very logical (and very American), it may not be what we're built for. 

Memorial Day 2009

Hype Versus Reality

I wanted to comment on this recent post from Crossfit Endurance (CFE).  The post highlights the success of one the CFE marathon runners.  When I clicked on the highlighted link, it discussed the results of other marathoners using CFE.

Here are marathon finishing times from a group using CFE, by gender:

• M, 3:13
• F, 3:20
• F, 3:49
• F, 3:50
• F, 4:21
• F, 4:32
• F, 4:33

Some of these participants were first-time marathoners, and some were not.  The average time for males was the one finisher at 3:13.  The average time for females was 4:04.

Now let's compare these results to those from the Furman Institute of Running & Scientific Training study in 2005.  In the study, again some of the participants were first-time marathoners, and some were not.  The average time for males was 3:35, and the average time for females was 4:02.

In terms of the males, you can't make a valid comparison with only one male for CFE.  One of the male finishers in the Furman study had a time of 2:57, which shows one end of the spectrum.  For the females, there were six finishers for CFE which makes for a decent comparison group.

The average time for females in the Furman study was 2 minutes lower than the CFE group.  It's safe to say that there is no significant difference between the two.  Given the case, why is CFE billing itself as a revolution?

I don't think CFE is a bad program, but the marketing of it makes it sound like they've reinvented the wheel.  As far as I can tell, the results are consistent with other modern training programs.  Yes, CFE is better than going out and pounding out 150 slow miles every week.  But it does not seem significantly better than other programs that incorporate intervals and faster running.

Summer Experiment #1

I have some initial results to post from the new model I've been working on.  My plan was to do a Body By Science workout infrequently, supplemented with other activities.  Today I did some deadlifts, after not lifting anything heavy for the past 17 days.  My original goal was to wait 21 days, but I couldn't make it; I became too impatient.

Usually, I do 3 sets of deadlifts with increasing weight, and with little rest between sets.  Today after the first set, I realized the conditioning for short rests wasn't there.  I have done several metabolic conditioning workouts (sprints/Tabata) in the past 17 days.  However, they did not seem to maintain the metabolic fitness necessary for lifting.

I decided to take long rests between sets, and by doing this I was able to lift the same weight I did 17 days ago.  Therefore, there was no loss in strength during this time, but there was a loss in conditioning.  This loss of conditioning is important, because I think it affects the response you have to an exercise.  Even though I was able to lift the same weight as before, it just didn't feel that great.

This was a pretty quick experiment to show that the metabolic conditioning for lifting is specific.  At least for me, using different high-intensity exercise (sprints) did not maintain the conditioning for resistance training.

Based on these results, the next logical experiment is to try variable resistance training once a week.  Just as it sounds, the idea is to lift different weights every weight - light, medium, heavy, or anywhere in between.  I plan on doing a heavier lift every 3 weeks, but also do light or medium lifts the other 2 weeks to maintain conditioning.

Book Review: Play

I just finished reading, "Play: How It Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul", by Stuart Brown.  I had high hopes for this book, but unfortunately my expectations were not met.

You would think a book on play would be light-hearted.  Instead, this was one of the most painful books I've ever read.  The content was nonexistent.  He simply references the work of biologists and then says that's enough to prove his ideas are legit.

The book contains all the overworked cliches, like the high-powered executive who can't relax, the overdriven parent who pushes their kids, etc.  There is also lots of name-dropping, pointing out academic superstars and others.  But as for original ideas in the book, there are none.

Brown keeps pointing out that you can learn the most about play by watching young children or animals.  Yet he then proceeds with page after page of boring, low-caliber material.  The book ends with the predictable ego trip: he plays a lot, his life is great, etc.  Either a publisher convinced him he should write a book on play, or he convinced a publisher; this is regardless of the fact that he is not capable of doing so.

If I were to write a book on play, I would use playful elements like Big Letters and COLOR.  Or even a photo:

(Photo from Flickr)

Play is supposed to be fun!