Crossfit announced they'll be releasing "hundreds of pages of previously published subscription articles to the CrossFit site over the next few months in order to expand the amount of content available free of charge." Awesome! They've already released 13 articles via the Crossfit Journal weblog. A great resource just got better; a big tip o' the hat to the Crossfit gang.
Ross Enamait just posted a good article and video on sledgehammer training. I'd do that in my garage this winter, but it would just be a matter of time before I knocked the garage door opener off the ceiling.
If you are considering creatine supplementation, I'm thinking these three articles, taken together, cover just about everything you need to know to make an informed decision:
I adopted the low-dose approach described in the second article and ran with it for around a month:
However, bear in mind that the water-retention-related gain in weight is primarily a function of the high creatine-loading doses (20 to 30 grams per day) used both in many research studies and by many athletes. In a very recent study, a lower loading dose (6g of creatine per day) produced only a one-pound gain in weight ('Why Your Creatine Consumption Is Costing You Too Much,' Running Research News, vol. 14(7), pp. 1-4, 1998).
And in fact researchers are finding that lower loading doses can be as effective as the big, 20-gram per day intakes at building up muscle creatine-phosphate concentrations, provided that the lower doses are taken over a little bit more time. Basically, the new research is revealing that six one-half gram doses of creatine per day (for a total of three grams daily) over the course of about 30 days will build muscle-creatine concentrations to a level comparable to that achieved with the whopping 20-gram ingestions. Very importantly, these three-gram per day intakes appear to be associated with very little water retention and weight gain.
Thus, it appears that creatine monohydrate can be a performance-boosting (and legal) supplement for endurance runners. The best way to take it is to simply sprinkle about a half-gram of the stuff on some food (and then of course eat the creatine and comestible) six times per day. Little creatine will be lost in the urine and faeces, creating a very economical intake pattern, little weight will be gained, and the resulting heightened intramuscular creatine-phosphate concentration should have a direct, positive impact on the quality of your high-intensity training sessions. Since intensity is the most potent producer of running fitness, your creatine-boosted sessions should eventually lead to some very nice PBs.
As advertised, no weight gain, which was nice. Everything else about that approach is so gradual it's impossible to say how much benefit I reaped, if any. Could I train harder? Maybe. Some of the burpee challenges seemed a bit easier on some days, but such things are highly variable under any circumstances. I'll probably run a couple more 2-month long cycles (using the same dosage strategy) over the coming year and see how it feels. I doubt I'd take it long-term, as I'd hate to run the risk of hampering my body's ability to produce creatine naturally, as suggested in the "long term risks" article.
Congrats to Jim at Beast Skills for nailing the planche! Wow, that's some strong work, and I know he's been at it for awhile... the rewards of hard work and perseverance. No permalink yet, so just check out the home page.
Sad to report that our (Koob's) season ended at Regionals this year. On Saturday we lost a close one to GLUM (12-10 in a capped game) and a less-close one to Above & Beyond (15-10). We won our other games, so that put us third after reseeding. We beat Bos in the first round of the backdoor bracket 15-9 or so. Meanwhile GLUM upset A&B in the championship game (not sure of the score, but by all accounts they were on fire winning maybe 15-10 after jumping out to a big lead). So we played A&B in the game to go, and oh oh oh I thought we had 'em. We took half 8-7, but lost 15-12. I would normally include details and color commentary, but I just can't bring myself to. Very proud of my team, everybody played their guts out. Hats off to GLUM and A&B. As much as it sucks to lose (and boy, does it suck), these hard-fought, high-stakes, tough-but-sporting games are why we play.
Nice to come home to a hero's welcome even with our premature exit from the series. Vicky made a great dinner and Amelia (8) and Ella (4) were all over me with sympathy, and were especially good last night. Funny exchange with Ella:
Ella: I'm sorry you lost your frisbee Daddy.
Jim: Thank you, baby.
Ella: But next year, TRY.
Jim & Vicky: [laugh]
Ella: (Wonders for a moment why we're laughing, then...) Try HARDER, I mean.
I will.
I was reading Ross Enamait's post on the recent report that walking won't get you fit, and followed his link to Sports Conditioning by Mark J. Smith, Ph.D., a four-page PDF (seven if you count the citations) nicely summarizing the current thinking on high-intensity training. How's this grab you:
The acknowledgment that the activity did not need to be continuous was a major shift from the initial recommendations of the ACSM. It was even stated, "accumulation of physical activity in intermittent, short bouts is considered an appropriate approach to achieving the activity goal". This concept was validated in another study that demonstrated that three 1-minute bouts of maximal intensity exercise, separated by 1-hour recoveries, constituted 74% of the oxygen uptake of 20 minutes of low- to moderate-intensity exercise.
In what other venue can 15% of the time buy you 74% of the benefit? And would a fourth minute get you to almost 100%?
I hate to steal Dr. Smith's thunder, and I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, but he concludes:
...the research is extensive in its support for the notion that high-intensity intermittent training should be the predominant method employed by the field and court sport athlete. It has been established that this type of exercise can have an equal or even greater training effect on the cardiovascular system than continuous endurance training, while also increasing the anaerobic capacity. This form of training also produces a more favorable body composition, and better improves the ability of the athlete to tolerate lactate. Research also supports the fact that there are a number of additional benefits resulting from participation in high-intensity training that are not evident with long continuous exercise.
Leave the endurance training for the endurance athletes.
Somehow a bunch of links piled up on me:
Furthermore, two independent methods of estimation indicate that the adverse effect of trans fat is stronger than that of saturated fat. By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,0000 premature deaths annually. These reductions are higher than what could be achieved with realistic reductions in saturated fat intake.
Inspired by this 500 Meter Rowing Time Crossfit thread, I had to give it a go. I was pretty pleased with my 1:37 time (barely keeping my lungs in my chest towards the end) until I started reading up on the C2 drag factor. Sounds like for this distance setting the damper at 10 is as close as we have to a standard. Mine was set on 3. Dang. Not sure how much harder 10's going to be, but I'll try it next week.
One of the nice things about this particular distance is the C2 display shows you the 500 split pace you are currently rowing. You get feedback on each stroke what your time is going to look like if you keep pulling the way you are. As fatigue set in I'm sure I would have slacked if the meter didn't make it painfully apparent I couldn't afford to slack if I wanted to beat 1:40.
The days are getting shorter and Thursday pickup is dwindling. As our Goaltimate kit was late in arriving last night, we played a few rounds of box, which reminds me of a rule variation y'all might like. Everybody has their own rules for how the disc is cleared after a turnover, either past a certain point/perimeter, or after X number of throws. The variation is "the fast break rule" and it works like this: you are allowed to score on the very first throw of your possession after a turnover. If that first throw is not a score (or if you opt to not even try) you then must clear as usual before you are allowed to score. One additional wrinkle: if the turnover occurs in the box, the fast break rule allows the score to be thrown from inside the box (so a player can pick up the disc lying in the box and immediately chip it to a receiver who's also in the box). No Callahan goals, but again, if a defender catches the disc in the box they can immediately throw it to a teammate also in the box for the fast break score.
Of course, if your house rules don't require a clear at all ("scrum rules", I like to call such games), this variation is meaningless.
Three things to start off your Monday:
Update: Oh. Damn. Turns out Dan Osman died doing something different (but similarly risky) in 1999.
Great language-geek post at defective yeti today, in which he mounts a wonderful defense of the word "like":
Really, "like" is more than just a word — it is practically a auxiliary verb that puts the entire statement into a new tense. Call it the "Past Approximate." If someone tells you they once ate fourteen eggs in one sitting, you recognize that is a boast; if someone says they ate, like, fourteen eggs, you know instinctively that the number was probably closer to five.
UPDATE: after discussing off-list, a buddy recommended Geoffrey Nunberg's books, and his NPR commentary of a few years ago, "Like, Wow!"
First off, I was never actually diagnosed with achilles tendinitis. They hurt like hell though, and now, after a lot of work, they're better. I think my self-diagnosis was correct, but what do I know? Anyway, here's what happened and what I did:
I played Easterns in early June with no problems, but afterwards had some achilles pain in one ankle. Pickup over the subsequent weeks made it quite a bit worse, and it ended up in both ankles. Some days were worse than others. On a good day I was aware of my achilles but could play fine, and on a bad day my first step was very painful and I probably could only manage 75% of my top speed, if that. I stayed in denial for two to four weeks (can't remember), then decided I had to take steps. So I did what I always do, which is read a lot about the problem. If you don't feel like doing all the same reading, here's what I took away from it:
In most cases it's not an inflammation problem. Instead, the tendon fibers are being damaged, and the tendon is becoming less tendon-like. There were scary MRIs somewhere of healthy tendon vs. deteriorating, and they certainly helped spur me to action. Anyway, there was a study where one group did your typical anti-inflammatory treatments (ice, ibuprofen, cortizone) while another group did strengthening exercises. At the end of the 12 weeks, the whole (I think) anti-inflammatory group was still miserable, while the whole (I think) strengthening group was much improved or cured. Sounds great, right? Unfortunately, the strengthening protocol is a bit of a pain in the ass. You do the following twice per day (!), seven days a week (!) for twelve (!!) weeks:
An eccentric calf drop works like this: Stand with the balls of your feet on the edge of a step, and your heels hanging off the edge. With both feet, raise yourself up on your toes. Now stand on one foot and lower your heel as far as it will go. Put your other foot back down to raise yourself up again. The point is you are trying to NOT work the raise (concentric contraction of the calf), and are trying to super-work the lower (eccentric contraction).
The study said you should work your way up to decent extra weight. I started off with bodyweight just to try it, jumped up to 20 pounds almost immediately, and finished the 12 weeks at 60 pounds (attached to a dip belt). The study also said the participants generally pushed through pain, but what does that mean, really? Personally, I found my achilles might start off sore in a given session, but would usually improve over the course of the session. The study didn't say anything about whether you should lay off other activity, so I chose not too. Kept playing pickup twice a week (at times quite painful), doing other workouts, etc. Not sure if this was the right thing to do or not.
The other thing I did was borrow a night splint (I've never ordered from them before, so can't vouch for them) and wear it overnight on whichever achilles felt worse (wish I had two!). I feel like this helped, but it's hard to be sure. There is no doubt the splinted achilles was less stiff and sore first thing in the morning. Anyway, if I were buying new I'd probably try a couple of the sock-like variety (another vendor I've never tried) as the bulky ones are, well, bulky, and more expensive.
Finally, the last thing I did was work the calf stretch I described in my My Key Stretches as often as possible. I can now get my hips to the wall, which is a pretty big improvement from where I started 12 weeks ago.
Anyway, the bottom line is that in the first four weeks I wasn't sure if it was helping. I suspected it might be, but still had painful days. In the second four weeks I was sure it was helping, but I wasn't all better yet. By the third four weeks I was basically pain-free. At this point I'm all done with the program and the achilles don't affect my play at all. I'm doing maintenance sets every other day or so, and we'll see how that goes. I still get stiffness in the achilles from time to time, but so far no more pain. We'll see if maintenance workouts keep the problem in check.