posted Apr-23-2007 12:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
The notion that there is a 20mg/dl range that is healthy, and anything outside of that unhealthy, is utterly ridiculous. Taking into account the wide variation in this reading, that is an absurdly narrow range.

---

This is a well accepted notion in medicine and science. It's relatively narrow, and statistical (it's where most of the healthy people are on the graph). I noted that an individual with a 150-160 total cholesterol was acceptable, but that was the bottom limit (before the red flag).

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass: The studies you mentioned did NOT look at the total cholesterol of trained athletes... [/B]

---

I didn't list any studies, but there are plenty showing that some athletes have poor lipid levels. The popular idea that being an athlete infers health is just not accurate. There are plenty of unhealthy athletes with abnormal cholesterol levels (and other problems).

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass: If someone has a total cholesterol of 120 as a couch potato, there is absolutely no way to extrapolate the meaning of this to someone who gets there through serious training. The patient populations are totally different, and the results therefore totally meaningless. It's like the doctor who forced my 24-year-old friend to wear a 24hr halter monitor because his resting HR was 48 and therefore "dangerous". [/B]

---

If this was done solely due to his heart rate, shame on the doc.

One cannot say "lower is better" just because high levels are bad. That's like saying a blood pressure of 80/40 is great (which it's not, and actually quite dangerous).

Trainging does not push our numbers down to abnormal levels.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
Studies found a CORRELATION in some cases between low cholesterol and certain health problems. This is NOT the same thing as causation. [/B]

---

Exactly. It's the low total cholesterol that correlates to some other potential (often hidden) problem. Hence, the red flag.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
My point is, context is important. Just as with mileage, where the number doesn't tell you a whole lot by itself
[/B]

---

I agree. And if someone told me they wanted to run a sub 3 hr marathon on 35 miles a week, I'd question the runner more about training and other things. (I also know a runner who has done this consistently, but nonetheless, the idea would be a red flag.)

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 12:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
They're right. But we're talking about total cholesterol.

---

The same applies.
HDL < 40 - potential problem
Total cholesterol < 80 - no problem unless HDL <40

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 12:35 PM            

quote:

---

...it was a huge surprise to us when Runner's World Magazine listed the Hersey Original third in its 1984 ratings, then the following year declared the Hersey Custom DPS to be the absolute best in both the men's and women's categories. We were completely shocked. So were the giant running shoe manufacturers. They put so much pressure on Runner's World and other publications that independently judged shoe ratings were quickly done away with forever.

---

Here is the page from the quote: http://www.herseycustomshoe.com/number1.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
running shoes...

There was a failed attempt to discuss the problems of running shoes in another forum (see "running shoe hype" under "Gear"), but no one could believe there was a problem and there was a lot of emotion.

There are many good studies and published papers on this topic. The book Fix Your Feet (Maffetone) does a good job explaining it (his textbook even better with references). Unfortunately, you won't see any of this stuff in the running magazines for obvious reasons. George Sheehan told me long ago that RW (the mag he wrote a regular column for) would not allow him to write on the topic.

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 12:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
This is a well accepted notion in medicine and science. It's relatively narrow, and statistical (it's where most of the healthy people are on the graph). I noted that an individual with a 150-160 total cholesterol was acceptable, but that was the bottom limit (before the red flag).

---

Low HDL may indicate a high risk of heart disease. Low overall cholesterol is NOT a red flag.

You have not quoted sources because there are none. Stop making up facts.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 12:43 PM               

When I first started running, I knew nothing. Perhaps now I know even less. But through simple logic I could tell that if you ran more, you'd get better at running; if you run longer, you can race longer; and if you run faster, you will get faster. Of course - it's not as simple as all that as I soon found out. But, in a way, it is. After a year and a half of running, I started finding out about "real" training methods and all that jazz. Through trial and error, though, I was familiar with the basics before reading a word.

Yes, most run of the mill runners can run fairly high mileage (at least, in terms of what they believe is "high mileage") Running more miles made me stronger and lessened my "injuries." But - I also learn there is a limit. Also - you can train out to do very long runs, which has good mental benefits and aids in recovery (my opinion.)...

Oh - I guess I wanted to talk shoes.

Anyhow - I did not even buy "real" runners shoes until over a year of running. They were terrible. Control this, stability that, correct this, cusion that. No, my feet and stride and biomechanics are nowhere near perfect - or even good. (I suppose Mr. Hashizume could expound on this.) But overly cushioned and stability shoes have led to nothing but pain in the joints and feet. They take over the job that your body should be learning on it's own. (night-time barefoot golf course running is even better, except for the sprinkler heads.)

The very best shoes from any manufacturer are light, flexible, durable, and protect your sole. Usually, their road-racing flats and non-spike cross country shoes. Lightweight training shoes, sometimes. That's about it. I recently ran the Trail Mix 25k in cross country shoes - 5oz. shoes that are nothing but knobby rubber with a covering and laces. Why am I the only one? I had no foot problems - those around me did. Why? Just good luck, I guess. I've run 33 miles on the trail in XC shoes, no problem, 41 miles on the road in flats - no problems. I have tried "trainers" in races twice. Both were unpleasent memories. Basically - I believe minimalistic running shoes minimilize injury. I have proved it to myself, both ways. It was good enough for those past masters - why is it not good enough for us?

Maybe, the majority of running shoes are made for people jogging somewhat regularly for enjoyment, not training for a race? I can't comment on what's appropriate for that situation. When I started, I thought building from 4 miles to 16 miles in 4 weeks was "fine". I've never practiced this ...moderation or enjoyment in running for no other purpose. Like most other runners in this thread, I enjoy improvement and racing and competition and making goals and the enjoyment that goes along with this.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 01:22 PM               

No, it's not. If you would like me to ask one or all of the 12 physicians sitting within 100 feet of me, I can.

"The popular idea that being an athlete infers health is just not accurate."

What is not accurate is asserting guidelines for cholesterol when you refuse to cite a source.

"Trainging does not push our numbers down to abnormal levels."

I never said they were abnormal. Now you are implying that anything below 160 is abnormal. Cite your source.
Marathon running does indeed bring down your total cholesterol, and is one of the only non-pharmaceutical ways to raise your HDL. My source on this is personal communication from the doctor who led the discovery team for atorvastatin (Lipitor) and later founded a company researching ways to raise HDL.

"They're right. But we're talking about total cholesterol."

If you really knew what you were talking about here, you'd know that the individual HDL and LDL numbers are both much more meaningful than the total number.

Provide some sort of evidence here. I've seen no evidence providing causation, only correlations which I have already explained.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 02:00 PM               

First, no one has asked about references until now. Below are just a few of what's out there. Please don't comment on them unless you read them in their entirety. And, if you're not capable of discussing something intelligently, keep away. You're arguing points I already agree with, but you seem more interested in a good yelling match.

Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80:291– 8. Serum cholesterol concentrations are associated with visuomotor speed in men: findings from the third National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, 1988–1994,1–3.
Jian Zhang, Matthew F Muldoon, and Robert E McKeown

Atherosclerosis. 2006 Sep 11;
Serum total cholesterol levels and risk of mortality from stroke and coronary heart disease in Japanese: The JACC study.
Cui R, Iso H, Toyoshima H, Date C, Yamamoto A, Kikuchi S, Kondo T, Watanabe Y, Koizumi A, Inaba Y, Tamakoshi A; JACC Study Group.

Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2007;44 Suppl:381-4.
Low total cholesterol predicts mortality in the nondemented oldest old.
Spada RS, Toscano G, Cosentino FI, Iero I, Lanuzza B, Tripodi M, Ferri R.

Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Apr 1;161(7):691-9.
Association of serum cholesterol and history of school suspension among school-age children and adolescents in the United States.
Zhang J, Muldoon MF, McKeown RE, Cuffe SP.

Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2005 Aug;15(4):425-32.
Lipidemic profile of athletes and non-athletes with similar body fat.
Petridou A, Lazaridou D, Mougios V.

J Psychosom Res 1995;39:549–62.
Cholesterol and psychological well-being. Wardle J.

J Mol Cell Cardiol 1991;23:1339–42. Can altering serum cholesterol affect neurologic function?
Mason RP, Herbette LG, Silverman DI.

Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:518–22.
Invited commentary: low blood cholesterol, nonillness mortality, and other nonatherosclerotic disease mortality: a search for causes and confounders.
Jacobs DR Jr, Muldoon MF, Rastam L.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 02:05 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Amazing. You guys just like to argue, I guess.

Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2005 Aug;15(4):425-32.
Lipidemic profile of athletes and non-athletes with similar body fat.
Petridou A, Lazaridou D, Mougios V.

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 02:22 PM               

Thanks for the compliment.
I am delighted that you have made the decsion to run hills as part of your daily routine. I know Arthur would have said get out and run over those hills.
Having grown up with with hills around me I know no different but they are the key to strength and Stamina.
I wrote much on the one and only Jack Foster on the Letsrun Forum and coupled with this thread on mileage, Jack ran relatively low miles but ran many Hills as part of his daily routine.
How many athletes do you know can run 2:11 for a marathon on around 70 miles a week (At age 40 !). It was the hills that made the difference.

To the rest of you guys I am finding the Cholesterol argument quite interesting. I have a problem with very slightly raised levels even though I have run regularly (40 years plus) and keep a very good diet.

Great to get onto a thread without the "snarkiness"

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 02:37 PM            

My total cholesterol was way above 150, now its 122. To be honest I trust my 2 doctors more than I trust a complete stranger on a running forum.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 02:58 PM            

My doctor found a 131 total cholesterol (62 HDL I recall) and everything else was great. But it made him order more tests (liver blood tests) and found a liver problem. I called my cardiologist cousin and he told me the 131 might be too low.

My question is does cholesterol have a relationship with aerobic fitness? (As opposed to anaerobic)

I love the running shoe discussion, can we get back to that too? (Some of you guys should have asked for references on that one ) I've struggled with finding good shoes for years. Right now I'm in Puma Meostro (sp) which are really flat and have no support.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 03:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by PB2:
I'm new to cool running, and this forum is one of the few good discussions. Can we 'discuss' instead of put others down if there's disagreement? It detracts from the good discussion.
My doctor found a 131 total cholesterol (62 HDL I recall) and everything else was great. But it made him order more tests (liver blood tests) and found a liver problem. I called my cardiologist cousin and he told me the 131 might be too low.
My question is does cholesterol have a relationship with aerobic fitness? (As opposed to anaerobic)
I love the running shoe discussion, can we get back to that too? (Some of you guys should have asked for references on that one ) I've struggled with finding good shoes for years. Right now I'm in Puma Meostro (sp) which are really flat and have no support.

---

My cholesterol comment was an aside, but maybe the "red flag" part was interpreted very different than my intention?

A great observation: aerobic function and cholesterol. Sure, most know that running can often improve cholesterol numbers. If your question is about building an aerobic base in particular and it's affect on blood lipids, this is important. If we measure RQ (treadmill test) and look at aerobic fitness that way, then we tend to see that those with more fat burning (lower RQ) have both a better aerobic base and better cholesterol numbers.

There's a shoe discussion (it got emotional too) elsewhere ("running shoe hype").

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 04:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Amazing. You guys just like to argue, I guess.

---

Yes, so you are just discovering. Many posters have discovered this the hard way, finding out that advice or a good spirited debate is simply impossible when certain posters simply want a yelling match. Oh yes, and these same strident posters are absolutely convinced that their own experience or anecdotal evidence is absolute proof of their convictions, and that everyone else is just an idiot. It's real pleasant.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 05:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by phthenry:
Yes, so you are just discovering. Many posters have discovered this the hard way, finding out that advice or a good spirited debate is simply impossible when certain posters simply want a yelling match. Oh yes, and these same strident posters are absolutely convinced that their own experience or anecdotal evidence is absolute proof of their convictions, and that everyone else is just an idiot. It's real pleasant.

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 06:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by phthenry:
Yes, so you are just discovering. Many posters have discovered this the hard way, finding out that advice or a good spirited debate is simply impossible when certain posters simply want a yelling match. Oh yes, and these same strident posters are absolutely convinced that their own experience or anecdotal evidence is absolute proof of their convictions, and that everyone else is just an idiot. It's real pleasant.

---

I recall the threads that caused you to write your post above and I also recall you were very argumentative in them. You were given good advice that you chose to debate with little or no knowledge of what you were debating. If you want this thread to deteriorate back to where it was a couple of hundred posts ago then I suggest you continue to post. Otherwise just read and remain silent, or go back to the one place where you sound intelligent....the Galloway threads.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 07:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pinnochio:
I recall the threads that caused you to write your post above and I also recall you were very argumentative in them. You were given good advice that you chose to debate with little or no knowledge of what you were debating. If you want this thread to deteriorate back to where it was a couple of hundred posts ago then I suggest you continue to post. Otherwise just read and remain silent, or go back to the one place where you sound intelligent....the Galloway threads.

---

I'm sure that's what you recall. You happen to recall incorectly, but that's okay. Just keep telling yourself you are right. It is exactly as I said. You don't want this thread to degenerate, but then you make the comment that I need to "go back to the one place where you sound intelligent....the Galloway threads." Oh, so funny! How do you think of such quips! (Wow, trash talking is so easy!)

If you look at those threads, you might see the same stupdity as you see here. Let me restate again: people using anecdotal evidence and their own personal experience as proof of something. I am absolutely astouned at the stupidity of some of the posts. The study that richard99 posted shows that the avarge miles run per week by the elites in his study was x, and then one of the usual suspects--I can't keep all these dumb macho jerks straight--says something like "But Kastor runs more than x, so the study is wrong." Does the poster even know what average is? (Hint: what is wrong with this statement: "The average income in the US can't be 400 K because Bill Gates makes millions!")

Or how about this nuggest of pure dumbness. The study defines elites as those who run under 2:16. A poster then goes on and says something like "But elites are much faster than 2:16, so the author of the study is being dishonest" Yes, that was actually an argument. The author of the study was completely up front about his definition, but in the minds of the coolrunning macho club, being up front is the same as being dishonest. And this poster became indignant when richard99 didn't concede the point. It's right here in this thread--go back and look.

One more thing. I asked advice about ageing and slowing times. When I revealed that I used the Galloway method, it became an attack on Galloway. According to you, I was supposed to not respond to the attacks, because when I did, that just proved I was argumentative and didn't know what I was talking about. In other words, you expect those who disagree with you to just shut up because you know you are so right.

[This message has been edited by phthenry (edited Apr-23-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 07:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by phthenry:

---

No. I read most of the thread from the beginnning. Maybe the study is mumbo jumbo; I honestly don't have a dog in the race either way. Maybe richard99 has tried to pass mumbo jumbo off as science before. I honestly don't know.

But I saw richard99 posting what seemed like a fairly innocuous study, and I saw posters make dumb, strident attack after dumb strident attack. (See my post below to Pinochio.) They were all sure they were so right, but as an outsider who knew nothing about richard99's history, it appeared that richard99 was the reasonable one.

Just look at the tone between the same posters and Dave on choslestoral. Dave was making some comments as an expert, and all of a sudden there is a yelling match going on. For example, after making a detailed post about the problems with overtraining, one poster responds with the ever-so-helpful comment "You don't know anything about the sport." That's it. No explanation as to why this poster disagreed, just a name calling assertion.

As Dave notes, there are a lot of posters who love to argue, and boy can they be ugly.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 07:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by phthenry:
I'm sure that's what you recall. You happen to recall incorectly, but that's okay. Just keep telling yourself you are right. It is exactly as I said. You don't want this thread to degenerate, but then you make the comment that I need to "go back to the one place where you sound intelligent....the Galloway threads." Oh, so funny! How do you think of such quips! (Wow, trash talking is so easy!)

If you look at this threads, you might see the same stupdity as you see here. Let me restate again: people using anecdotal evidence and their own personal experience as proof of something. I am absolutely astouned at the stupidity of some of the posts. The study that richard99 posted shows that the avarge miles run per week by the elites in his study was x, and then one of the usual suspects--I can't keep all these dumb macho jerks straight--says something like "But Kastor runs more than x, so the study is wrong." Does the poster even know what average is? (Hint: what is wrong with this statement: "The average income in the US can't be 400 K because Bill Gates makes millions!")

Or how about this nuggest of pure dumbness. The study defines elites as those who run under 2:16. A poster then goes on and says something like "But elites are much faster than 2:16, so the author of the study is being dishonest" Yes, that was actually an argument. The author of the study was completely up front about his definition, but in the minds of the coolrunning macho club, being up front is the same as being dishonest. And this poster became indignant when richard99 didn't concede the point. It's right here in this thread--go back and look.

One more thing. I asked advice about ageing and slowing times. When I revealed that I used the Galloway method, it became an attack on Galloway. According to you, I was supposed to not respond to the attacks, because when I did, that just proved I was argumentative and didn't know what I was talking about. In other words, you expect those who disagree with you to just shut up because you know you are so right.

---

Other than venting, what's your point? After the usual back-and-forth between Richard and his adversaries, several people have posted excellent information in this thread that contradicts "Richard's study" and basic anti-Lydiard rap and gives a heck of a good counter-argument. I, for one, was completely unimpressed with the original post but have been equally impressed with the later discussion. Ironically, the original post has led me in the opposite direction . . . and Richard has disappeared, which says something in and of itself. Do you want to pick up the baton, argue for the Running Times article, and discuss Nobby's points?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 08:01 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 08:11 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 08:41 PM            

The guide at lydiardfoundation.org says, "When the marathon conditioning phase is completed, or no further time can be spared, it is necessary to develop speed and start to develop anaerobic capacity to exercise."

I have plenty of time to spare, so how will I know that the marathon conditioning phase is completed? The first aim in the marathon conditioning as I understand it is to get to something like the time schedule given (with the indicated intensities) or even longer he suggests. Then one progressively ups the pace slightly while paying attention to your body. If taking a long-term view, should one go at this until he no longer sees improvement or is it more efficient to move on to the hills and track at some point and revisit marathon conditioning (presumably faster)?

Thanks,
Greg

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 08:59 PM               

If you'll notice, those that argued with Richard and took him to task earlier in this thread have participated in dozens and dozens of other threads where the discussions never turned so ugly. The reason is that Richard made a sweeping statement rallying against commonly accepted principles, but never provided any decent evidence supporting this notion. There is a decent parallel in this side thread; low serum cholesterol has been blamed for everything from stroke to BO, but no causitive link has been shown to any of it....yet you made the statement that there was a narrow healthy range and we're all on the bad end of the stick. Associations without further support aren't worth the paper they're printed on, yet we're supposed to accept it as fact.

I'm not argumentative by nature....Richard deserved it but perhaps I'm sensitive to your line of thinking simply because I've been involved in enough science that was misinterpreted by the mainstream media that it boils my blood when I see such studies being misconstrued or given more credit than they're worth. (I once rushed home to see our work covered on CNN after spending the morning with the news crew, only to see it completely misinterpreted and applied by their "expert"). So don't take it personally, it's more about correcting the interpretation than a personal affront.

Come to think of it, I sincerely apologize for comparing you to Richard. I don't think that particular correlation was strong enough

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 09:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
...Richard made a sweeping statement rallying against commonly accepted principles, but never provided any decent evidence supporting this notion.

I'm not argumentative by nature....Richard deserved it but perhaps I'm sensitive to your line of thinking simply because I've been involved in enough science that was misinterpreted by the mainstream media that it boils my blood when I see such studies being misconstrued or given more credit than they're worth.

---

Andy,

I'll repeat this point again; I encouraged you or anyone to review any study I've cited and prove where I've misinterpreted it, misquoted it, taken it out of context, etc. If you can prove I've made a such a mistake or error in citing a study I will correct that error.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted Apr-23-2007 11:04 PM               

IP: Logged