How old of a fuck are you?! With the amount youre undertraining, youre at more of a risk to get hurt in the race. I have ran sub three in the marathon not too long ago and did it easily by training 80 mpw.
Under 10-12 miles I can avg 8:20-8:53 once I get over like 15 plus i have to force myself to avg 10 plus so I don’t break like a bitch. Lol. My Nextdoor neighbor did the Zion race which is like 150plus miles with backpack etc. crazy race.
Lol. Just turned 50. 80 mpw cmon man I dont get paid for this shit. I’ve run 5 plus marathons, handful of halves and tris and the only time and I mean only t8me I get injured is from over training, during the training. 80% of the people who race tend to overtrain and be either injured or exhausted come race day. I do yoga 4 days a week which help tremendously to not get injured. Running is a personal endeavor and should be tailored to yourself. Running 22 miles was not necessary if you ask me but I did it because I train with a group and the girls motivate me lol.
Here at 12 mins Kevin Smith says he used to drink 2 gallons of milk, then he got a heart attack. (Bad,bad milk...) " Smith had lost about 80 pounds total in the 10 years leading up to his cardiac episode, but after his heart attack, doctors told Smith that he had to lose another 50 pounds. At the time of the heart attack, Smith weighed 256 pounds, and in the six months after the heart attack, Smith lost 51 pounds, reaching a weight of 205 pounds." So the fucker was 330 lbs at one point in his life and he blamed meat eating for his heart attack??? That was MILK, Kevin!!! Milk!!!
Well he might had had advanced artery hardening conditions so he needed to seriously cut back on saturated fats. Cutting back on meat and milk to lose the weight because he was critically obese does not necessarily mean meat and milk are bad per se. If he was in a healthy state I am sure he could consume both regularly within normal quantities. But shit, 2 gallons of whole milk a day.....blech...what adult drinks milk like that, even chocolate milk. That is certainly not healthy...
Where are we at on our plates in 2019 in terms of preventing coronary artery disease & heart attack?? What's our best bet that science has to offer today? None of us could follow it (but if we could ) what is it with no consideration as to compliance? Strictly evidenced-based science...best case? This will be very interesting as to the prevailing wisdom here. The best way to avoid an STD is to not have sex, I know we won't follow this "optimum diet", just what is it?
They are important too, but diet is more so. Can be under all kinds of stress, toss & turn all night long eat great "non-atherogenic" diet ..stay healthy Take the reverse, no stress, sleep all day gt out bed 3pm, eat sh^tty...early death regardless of a good nights sleep
Speaking of Vitamin D... Is Sunscreen the New Margarine? Current guidelines for sun exposure are unhealthy and unscientific, controversial new research suggests—and quite possibly even racist. How did we get it so wrong? These are dark days for supplements. Although they are a $30-plus billion market in the United States alone, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, beta-carotene, glucosamine, chondroitin, and fish oil have now flopped in study after study. If there was one supplement that seemed sure to survive the rigorous tests, it was vitamin D. People with low levels of vitamin D in their blood have significantly higher rates of virtually every disease and disorder you can think of: cancer, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, heart attack, stroke, depression, cognitive impairment, autoimmune conditions, and more. The vitamin is required for calcium absorption and is thus essential for bone health, but as evidence mounted that lower levels of vitamin D were associated with so many diseases, health experts began suspecting that it was involved in many other biological processes as well. And they believed that most of us weren’t getting enough of it. This made sense. Vitamin D is a hormone manufactured by the skin with the help of sunlight. It’s difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities through diet. When our ancestors lived outdoors in tropical regions and ran around half naked, this wasn’t a problem. We produced all the vitamin D we needed from the sun. But today most of us have indoor jobs, and when we do go outside, we’ve been taught to protect ourselves from dangerous UV rays, which can cause skin cancer. Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills. Yet vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials. Five years ago, researchers were already warning that it showed zero benefit, and the evidence has only grown stronger. In November, one of the largest and most rigorous trials of the vitamin ever conducted—in which 25,871 participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke. How did we get it so wrong? How could people with low vitamin D levels clearly suffer higher rates of so many diseases and yet not be helped by supplementation? As it turns out, a rogue band of researchers has had an explanation all along. And if they’re right, it means that once again we have been epically misled. These rebels argue that what made the people with high vitamin D levels so healthy was not the vitamin itself. That was just a marker. Their vitamin D levels were high because they were getting plenty of exposure to the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above. One of the leaders of this rebellion is a mild-mannered dermatologist at the University of Edinburgh named Richard Weller. For years, Weller swallowed the party line about the destructive nature of the sun’s rays. “I’m not by nature a rebel,” he insisted when I called him up this fall. “I was always the good boy that toed the line at school. This pathway is one which came from following the data rather than a desire to overturn apple carts.” Weller’s doubts began around 2010, when he was researching nitric oxide, a molecule produced in the body that dilates blood vessels and lowers blood pressure. He discovered a previously unknown biological pathway by which the skin uses sunlight to make nitric oxide. It was already well established that rates of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and overall mortality all rise the farther you get from the sunny equator, and they all rise in the darker months. Weller put two and two together and had what he calls his “eureka moment”: Could exposing skin to sunlight lower blood pressure? Sure enough, when he exposed volunteers to the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight without sunscreen, their nitric oxide levels went up and their blood pressure went down. Because of its connection to heart disease and strokes, blood pressure is the leading cause of premature death and disease in the world, and the reduction was of a magnitude large enough to prevent millions of deaths on a global level. Wouldn’t all those rays also raise rates of skin cancer? Yes, but skin cancer kills surprisingly few people: less than 3 per 100,000 in the U.S. each year. For every person who dies of skin cancer, more than 100 die from cardiovascular diseases. People don’t realize this because several different diseases are lumped together under the term “skin cancer.” The most common by far are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. In fact, says Weller, “When I diagnose a basal-cell skin cancer in a patient, the first thing I say is congratulations, because you’re walking out of my office with a longer life expectancy than when you walked in.” That’s probably because people who get carcinomas, which are strongly linked to sun exposure, tend to be healthy types that are outside getting plenty of exercise and sunlight. Melanoma, the deadly type of skin cancer, is much rarer, accounting for only 1 to 3 percent of new skin cancers. And perplexingly, outdoor workers have half the melanoma rate of indoor workers. Tanned people have lower rates in general. “The risk factor for melanoma appears to be intermittent sunshine and sunburn, especially when you’re young,” says Weller. “But there’s evidence that long-term sun exposure associates with less melanoma.” These are pretty radical words in the established dermatological community. “We do know that melanoma is deadly,” says Yale’s David Leffell, one of the leading dermatologists in the country, “and we know that the vast majority of cases are due to sun exposure. So certainly people need to be cautious.” Still, Weller kept finding evidence that didn’t fit the official story. Some of the best came from Pelle Lindqvist, a senior research fellow in obstetrics and gynecology at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, home of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Lindqvist tracked the sunbathing habits of nearly 30,000 women in Sweden over 20 years. Originally, he was studying blood clots, which he found occurred less frequently in women who spent more time in the sun—and less frequently during the summer. Lindqvist looked at diabetes next. Sure enough, the sun worshippers had much lower rates. Melanoma? True, the sun worshippers had a higher incidence of it—but they were eight times less likely to die from it. So Lindqvist decided to look at overall mortality rates, and the results were shocking. Over the 20 years of the study, sun avoiders were twice as likely to die as sun worshippers. There are not many daily lifestyle choices that double your risk of dying. In a 2016 study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, Lindqvist’s team put it in perspective: “Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor of a similar magnitude as smoking, in terms of life expectancy.” More at... https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science