...think of it in different terms.... ...to connect with a recent thread on this list, I've been 'tapering' for my marathon debut for the last 20 years or so...but surely I need another 10-15 years at it... ...gotta be careful, if I over-taper I might fall off the couch...on the other hand, if I ever say I'm "ready", I might have to actually DO something...
I've adopted the philosphy that since most of you say that distance racing is 95% mental, I will concentrate my scarce training time for maximum return, by focus solely on those mental aspects. Indeed I've found that by mile 24 I usually hit the wall and have to shut off the TV from any marathon coverage. My wife says I need to repair the wall where I've hit it so many times. It's on my list of things to do- one of these years... Recently though, I've had a breakthrough and can sometimes last out the whole two and a half hours of NBC coverage. It sure is tough though. Too much NBC and I'm tempted to resort to doping to get through it. If that's where I end up, my excuse will be: I'm not a drug cheat if I'm not actually doing anything... ... think about it. I'll dazzle 'em with impeccable logic. Blame it on NBC. Surely an extenuating circumstance that ANY arbritrator would symphathize with. More mileage than a lame toothpaste excuse anyway. My main training approach is LSD: Long-Slow-DirecTV, with plenty of dietary supplements and occasional fart(lek) along the way. The 5% physical requirements can take care of themselves, is my plan. Sure enough, it works- at age 45 I've got about 30% more to work with on the physical side, and I didn't even have any specific training plan to accumulate any such 'enhanced benefits'. It must be an unanticipated side-benefit of the intense focus on mental preparation. Yeh, that's the ticket. Couch track fan and proud of it...(hee, hee!) RT >There are lots of fat and obese folks in California! I unfortunately am on >the edge of that category myself. I am overweight also! > >Gerald >Southern California > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mcewen, Brian T >Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:20 PM >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: marathon qualifiers > > ><<< >I absolutely agree >that this generation is less active, but that really is different than >obesity. Obesity is much more endemic among low income groups in which >dietary habits have degraded. And the spread in income distribution over >the last 20 years in the US had exacerbated this trend. >>>> > >Anecdotes don't prove anything, but ... > >This generation of "kids" (say those born between 1980 and 1995) are >definitely more obese than any other generation. This is not confined to >any income group ... in my experience and observation. Rich people have >jumped on the Lard-wagon just as heavily as any other demographic. > >I am still young, but when I was in elementary school, each class had ONE >fat kid that was made fun of. A few other kids were sedentary, but not >really fat. Now? half of every class is obese or close to it. I still >live near my elementary school and pass it frequently ... seeing this >everyday. > >I also live near Michigan State University and see coeds who proudly display >bulging bellies and WIDE, FAT ASSES in low-rise bell-bottom jeans. The >typical 20 year old girl at MSU has a waistline and butt that would have >shamed the average student just 10 years ago. I am not the only >30-something that has noticed this in my town. > >I stopped into the GNC nearest to MSU yesterday, and the clerk told me that >"50% of every dollar this store takes in is from FAT-BURNERS ... Hydroxycut, >Xenedrine and the GNC brand." I was stunned. > >Before you say, "Well, that is because he is in Michigan. Everyone is fat >there." Realize that the student body is by far the fittest of the schools >in our state. MSU Men's XC placed third at District ... beating the >talented Badgers. The Women's team WON IT. > >People ARE fat in Michigan ... but that is NOT why I perceive this >generation of young people to be fatter on the whole. Please don't comment >if you live in California ... you have no idea how fat the rest of the >nation is. > >/Brian McEwen > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:30 PM >To: Oleg Shpyrko >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: marathon qualifiers > > >At 04:21 PM 11/12/2001 -0500, Oleg Shpyrko wrote.. >> > >> > At 01:06 PM 11/12/2001 -0500, Oleg Shpyrko wrote.. >> > >I am constantly surprised how soccer "pulling away talent" theory is >> > >mentioned much more often than, say, soaring obesity levels among >> > >teenagers. >> > >> > The population of elite distance runners almost never will produce obese >> > kids. Tendency toward obesity is linked in large part to body type. I >> > don't see many 6-4/250 elite distance runners--they tend to play left >> tackle. >> >>Obesity is an effect rather than a cause in my argument. Higher obesity >rates >>among kids is caused by lack of any aerobic activity. Yes, perhaps it means >>that the kids genetically prone to obesity will become more obese, while >>some skinny kids will remain skinny while inactive - but altogether it >doesn't >>change a fact that kids are much less active than they were 20 years ago. >>Kids are slower because they are less active, and they are more fat because >>they are less active, not that "kids are slower because they >>are fat". > >I'm the list "stickler." I bug people when they are not precise in their >meaning (and sometimes I fall into this trap myself.) I absolutely agree >that this generation is less active, but that really is different than >obesity. Obesity is much more endemic among low income groups in which >dietary habits have degraded. And the spread in income distribution over >the last 20 years in the US had exacerbated this trend. But you're right >that inactivity among this group has certainly lowered base conditioning. > >Another problem has been the demise of the "pickup game" in any >sport. Kids seem to only participate when they are in supervised >activities, which means they have to operate on adult time. > > >>Basically, the new generation's Bill Rodgers may very well be some skinny >>kid who >>currently spends most of his time on the couch playing Ninetendo. >> >>Even if we assume that the new generation's equivalent of all 200-something >>sub-2:20 marathoners from 1983 are playing soccer now, perhaps my next >>question >>is how come US is still so far behind other countries, like Spain, >Portugal, >>Italy, Mexico or Brazil, which can somehow supply the world with BOTH top >>marathoners AND top soccer players? >> >>Additionally, if you compare the ratio of popularities of soccer/xc+track >at >>high school levels in US to that in the countries mentioned above, it's >>quite surprising they can produce any top distance runners at all. >> >>Compared to European soccer club system, US still lacks a serious >>post-collegiate >>professional circuit. One would expect a rather large fraction of >>these alleged distance runners who try to become good at soccer to come >back >>to what they are naturally good at. >>Perhaps in the future we will see more of such a-la-Larson examples. >> >>I simply don't think blaming soccer for the lack of top marathoners US >>is facing is the answer - it's simply not consistent with >>what is happening in other countries. >> >>Oleg. > >The problem is the CHANGE that has occurred since the 1980s. Before the US >did NOT have competition for athletes between soccer and >running. Basketball and football favor outsized athletes,and the only >sport that competed with normal-sized athletes on a large scale was >baseball. However, baseball requires a completely different set of skills >(which pulls from the javelin-throwing population) with eye-hand >coordination. Watch a cross country team play a softball game and you'll >see why they're in that sport ;^). Now, however, this NEW sport has >arrived that requires substantial conditioning, and players with adequate, >rather than great, eye-foot coordination can do quite well. > >If soccer had been popular in the 1970s here, then your analogy would be >correct. However, it was not, and so we now have competition that did not >exist in the past. That's why soccer is so influential now. > > >Richard McCann
