Adarq.org

Since early July... I had lost some one very important.
I could not adjust and it affect me in many ways.

ah damn.. :/ sorry to hear man.

Looking back at these 28 days...
I guess what I can conclude is.
for a guy aged late 30, with body fat before 20%. 
Suddenly Running 100km in 1 month with every session over 30 min.   
Without any change in Diet.

WILL not help with weight lost. 
May be I lost something while gained something, but the over all weight remain the same.

The is the only conclusion i got.

(compare to my previous HIIT experience...   Seems like running 10x 80m at all out is way more effective in weight lost and lean up)




LbSS,  sorry to hear that.... u are right... take care and be kind...always.

physics is a lie!

funny how scoob just didn't realize he ate more in response to running more, then comes up with that assertion.



you had roughly the same diet with your HIIT & running experiments?

Quote from: scoobychau on August 31, 2018, 12:21:55 am

Suddenly Running 100km in 1 month with every session over 30 min.   
Without any change in Diet.

WILL not help with weight lost.

That is plain wrong, not from a training knowledge standpoint , but from a physics law standpoint.
Each of those 30m sessions would be around 300 extra kcals burned. Multiply it by 20 sessions and you get around 6000 kcals, or 1 kg of fat. Of course 1kg is within the daily fluctuation tolerance, so changes in carb/salt may mask that but it is just impossible to add that activity without adding food and not lose weight.

Right. Most people think running burns alot more calories than it actually does. People talk about "running off that donut", when in reality, they didn't. They run for 30 minutes slow, burn like 200 kcal. That's nothing if someone eats garbage. I ate a small bag of oreos today, had like 6 mini oreos in it, not even enough to make a snail full, and it was like 180 kcal. Normal people burn X kcal and then eat X*2 kcal without realizing it.

Quote from: scoobychau on August 31, 2018, 12:21:55 am

(compare to my previous HIIT experience...   Seems like running 10x 80m at all out is way more effective in weight lost and lean up)

That is probably true though. HIIT is a totally different realm.

According to your physics statement, it can't be true.. hehe

10 x 80m burns a few calories, probably bumps up your anabolic hormones a bit on occasion, creates less overall stress .. but beyond that it's no comparison. The biggest thing 10 x 80m does is help you not eat as much as longer training does. It's easier to be on a strict diet when your work load is small. Add in large volumes of work and you usually have to eat alot more, even if you are trying to lean up. So, if someone isn't dialed in to diet when increasing their distance running, they are going to eat alot more without even realizing it. Look at all of those "fat marathoners". They eat a fuckton.

Also, let's not just pick on "fat marathoners". I see tons of fat "sprinters" every day. People doing "sprint intervals". They rarely change.

FWIW, I do sprints inside of my long distance sessions, I mean combining 2-3 hour sessions with sprints from 20-30s and such, you'd think i'd be the leanest person on earth.. i'm not. I'm very efficient at running now & I eat alot. It evens out.

anyway, without consistent discipline across the entire spectrum, things barely change. doesn't matter what it is.

True about sprints too, the (physics ) model i used to come to a different conclusion was this : He said all out sprints so what i had in mind was full recovery, so i gave 3 minutes for each repetition, for a total of 30 minutes of ME HIIT. I would expect that to be more around 500kcals plus the after-burn effect and the extra muscle growth simulation. So, although we are still in very small numbers to change one's physique in 1 month, i would expect the specific HIIT option to be more effective.

10 x 80m with 3' recovery wouldn't really be HIIT IMHO.. that seems like it's just a sprint session. I doubt that would come anywhere close to burning as much kcal as 30 minutes of non stop running.

80m on, 30-45s off, for 30 minutes total would be more HIIT-ish to me. I can see that burning as much or more than continuous running for 30 minutes.

my 2cents.

pc!

Aha, very interesting/enlightening both. That distance-based theory is awesome, my.... calculation base was [time+HR]. Like run 15 seconds 100%, build up to idk 170+bpm HR , then walk around resting 3 mins, HR is still around 120 so supposedly still burning, then repeat that for 30 minutes, so i would expect it to be >>> 30 minutes LISS. True about HIIT & rest too of course, just wanted a quick word reference to that thing.

180925 Witnessing The True Competitor 3km race (Suppose to be solo)
This girl in front of us in black. Is younger and shorter than us. She ran solo by herself (which she is suppose to). With perfect form and pace.

We trail behind for the whole race, knowing she is younger, we try to over take over and over for at least 6 times.

Every time we got close, she blast off for few sec. Until the final 200m at the track, we fully charged and so does she. 200m full speed is tough for these kids. They end up finished the race side by side. (She is not even in our category.)

Right after we finished together, she start crying saying she can't find her dad or mom. We stand beside her to keep her company; apparently she is faster than both her older sister, dad and mom.

I am surprised to see she cry right after the finish line; she is like a mature professional thru out the race... After all, she is only 5 yrs old. Extremely Impressive.

We finished at 3rd place at 16:27.
PB is 15:10, however my gps logged our 3km at 15:29 for both today and our last race.

If only we can finish with our PB time, we would be 1st. (Current 1st is 15:23)

P.S. This is suppose to be a solo event. But we end up running together. I am sure things will be different if she is running solo.

who is Leborn?

leborn james is 6'8 with a good wing span.... he doesn't really NEED a 43 in vertical to take over.... he can get by with a 35' vertical.....

Depends on the perspective, the goal, where you see yourself going. If you intend to be just good or even very good, I very much agree. Lebron would still be an awesome player with 10'' less vert. But Lebron is not an awesome player, he is the best basketball player that ever lived ( says me, but even the worse hater would have him at top 5 ). If you are out to be GOAT, then you can't settle with getting by at anything. IMHO, for people that are the best in the world, at anything, be it sport, science, music, business, whatever, 'getting by' is an unknown word.