I track my nutritional intake using Fitday - I’m very aware that I eat 2300 cals per day. I also track my output and having had my resting metabolism tested, so I know that on average I burn 500 cals per day more than I take in.
This is what frustrates me about people who make assumptions re: Clydesdales.
You have just assumed that I don’t bother to track my nutrition. Why are you assuming that because I’m fat, I’m not as attentive to all aspects of training as a slim trigeek? This thread started with an assumption that Clydes are lazy - another wrong assumption.
I was hoping that by sharing the reality of my weight and training, that some people who have incorrect pre-conceived notions regarding Clydesdales who are overweight would re-think their positions.
First off let me state that I think you are on the right track of understanding how the body works. But, all you did in your reply was basically restate what I already said. Plus, anyone can cut and past something off the internet like you did in your response. Although, I agree with some of what was written. However, I don’t agree with your assumption that a high-fat diet does not work. Saturated fats yes, but a diet high in Omega 3’s (primarily) is essential to achieving your goals. It helps regulate fat metabolism, control inflammation (which in turn reduces Cortisol levels), and maintain a healthly immune system just to name a few. Also, if you think training is any more important than diet you still have much to learn. You could eat pizza every night when your in your early 20’s and still be lean (then you can tell everyone how great you theory on training is - “see it works for me”). If you think you have all the answers start a thread on your diet philosphy and see how many people on this board who do know what they are talking agree with you.
I usually get great information on this board and enjoy reading what others have to say, but you are offending a lot of people lately including myself. Why don’t you try and contribute something useful rather than blather the crap you have been.
At St. Anthony’s the problem was compounded by sending the Clydesdales off in the first wave which left many of the fastest age groupers dealing with the slowest clydes out on the bike course… again, the crowded bike course and people ignoring the rules made this a safety issue.<<
And if you send the 20-24 men off first, the 25-29 men (or whomever is in the next wave) will have to deal with the slowest of the 20-24 men. Repeat ad nauseum throughout the age groups. Crap, start the pros first and sometimes you’ll have the fastest age groupers of the next wave PASSING the slowest pros.
Your last statement is the only correct one: crowded bike course. It had NOTHING to do with the Clydesdale wave.
Read what I’ve written… aside from my initial post about my frustrations with St. Anthony’s, it’s been all content. I realise that I’ve offended some people, but there are also some people who are reading what I’ve said and nodding their heads, maybe I’m even hoping that through my posts some people might actually start thinking about some of these issues and try and put themselves in my shoes. Please see my original post entitled “St. Anthony’s was dangers… and here’s why” and look for the post where I listed the issues. Now, enough of ad homenim attacks (if you don’t know what it means then you need to look it up, because you’re good at it) It doesn’t matter that I’m young, skinny, and don’t have a PhD, the information is still correct.
When I posted on diet I gave a suggestion to send him on his way to acutally learning for himself about the body and what it takes to change one’s body.
I never said that diet was unimportant relative to training, I think it’s totally the opposite of that. The attempt to “teach” the body to burn fats through eating a higher fat diet has been proven to be bunk and changes in fat metabolism (what little there are) occur as a result of high-volume training.
Omega-3 and Omega-6 ratios are a pretty esoteric topic that was way beyond the scope of my post, since I wasn’t going to write a book about what I know but instead give him the keywords to go do his own learning, to teach him to teach himself. As for Omega-3 and -6, these are by definition not fats… they’re fatty acids, bond them with some glycerol and you’ve got fat. Also, when one talks about Omega-3 supplimentation we’re talking about taking 2-3 grams a day of flax/fish oil, an amount that does not contain substantial numbers of calories, nor does it change the metabolic process of burning fats. Taking Omega-3’s is one tiny optimizer in the overall picture of getting lean and healthy. The reason the “Omega Diet” (or whatever that book was called) was successful was that it encouraged people to eat generally healthy, whole foods under the premise of improving Omega-3 ratios… when I’d be willing to bet that most of the weight loss was as a result of improved insulin issues.
On an open forum you risk being offended, deal with it. I have the same right to say what I am as you do in flaming me for it.
The slowest clydesdales are very slow… there are a lot more clydesdales who are slow than other young age groups. As a result there are more clydesdales who have to be passed by the waves behind them. Again, this would not be an issue if the bike course wasn’t crowded. The clydedale’s speed was one more contributing factor to the crowding of the course. By sending the on average fastest age groups first, there ends up being less overtaking, which is where the danger was in Sunday’s race… as Mark and about 10 other people found out by crashing as a result of trying to ride their own race.
Good post SCM. You have summarized the Clydesdale mentality perfectly. Compete against yourself, and if there is something else like a trophy to shoot for, that’s just a bonus. I got my first big guy’s trophy last year and I got a big kick out of it. I hadn’t even given it a thought until somebody saw the results after the race and told me I better stick around because I had a tropy coming.
And you’re right, it’s funny when the little guys line up behind you. I did a half-marathon recently, and I people lined up behind me like I was leading the Bunny Hop.
there are a lot more clydesdales who are slow than other young age groups.<<
Maybe, maybe not. But, it’s pretty much a given that the Clydesdale wave will be a lot smaller than ANY of the male AGs, up to about age 50. So, if you are really fast, you’ll still have to pass more slow and mid-pack people in the AGs than a smaller number of really slow Clydesdales.
I agree with you on crowded courses. Bad. The rest, you’re full of crap IMO.
You’re right… the numbers do make the difference. There were around Thanks for actually explaining why I’m wrong in a way that is logical… there were about 100 more in the age groups than Clydesdale on average.
Which makes the competitiveness for a Top 10 of the Clydesdale categories about 1/2 to 1/3 of the regular age groups.
You just don’t get it do you? You have taken a shot at just about everyone and everything…why don’t you go for religion next, your on a roll. You can say whatever you want but use some sort of restraint in an open forum.
I am still waiting for you to start the thread about how much of an expert you are on diet and nutrition so everyone can be enlightened.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and write off your attitude to being young and brash. However, you just keep on digging a deeper hole.
Out of curiosity - how do you make it through the swim being all crowded like it is?
This will have been a success if people talk about the issues raised… and then make some changes that will improve safety and allow for competition. Also to ensure top age group triathlon is about really being the best your age and make sure winning a prize is something that one must work for and can take pride in… every finisher is a winner… which is why we give finisher’s medals. Finishing is about finishing. There are some of us who actually race triathlons.
I realise that there will always be some people who will resist change to the end, and others who will turn discussion into an emotional mudlsinging contest and make the rest of us sound awful because we think that maybe new athletes shouldn’t have a place at one of the country’s most respected age group triathlons.
The sheer number of personal attacks and highly emotional responses has made me wonder if I was successful. There were probably others who thought that there was a grain of truth in my statements, but were afraid to speak after the personal flaming that I recieved. I made it clear in my initial thread that I was willing to engage in a rational discussion about what I saw, even to the point of being willing to talk to people over the telephone or over e-mail and only one person even e-mailed me, and he did so in support. I’m not an anonymous troll, I’m a concerned racer.
I understand your intent was not to troll, denigrate clydes, TNTr’s, or those who are not racing tri’s. You had safety issues at St A’s that were potentially threatening to you and other racers. You want it addressed, fixed. You want to be able to put the hammer down and have a reasonable chance to work through the pack, just everyone obey the rules and its all good. I’m with you if I understood you correctly.
I think you made mistakes in your delivery. The “tone,” and that certainly is a subjective view, came across more than a few times as elitist, arrogant. I’ve made similar mistakes where what I’ve e-mailed was not loaded with anything, at least from my perspective, but it sure was not perceived that way. I wonder if those who were challenging you were just trying to turn up the volume so you could hear!? Frankly, I’m trying to turn it down, only so that you might take another look at the responses…see if they have any merit. Take ownership where you need to, don’t where it doesn’t belong. I’m not trying to be patronizing… I think that most people are usually intending for good stuff to happen and some times it turns to crap, we get defensive, I’ve been there too, and more crap happens. Thanks for listening. Chappy
As I’ve said before, I agree with your concerns about safety and participants following the rules. And while not in danger of winning any races I enter, I can assure you that I RACE every race as a RACE. You seem to act as if you’re taking the moral high ground and are disgusted by the personal attacks of other posters. Need I remind you that you began this entire discussion (in your St. Anthony’s thread) by calling a number of us “fatass” and further implying that we are unsafe and unskilled participants who are unwilling to follow the rules? Maybe some of the responses were a bit too personal for your taste. But I can assure you that many of us felt that you posted with a complete lack of tact in your original post. People who treat me in person the way you treated me on this forum usually end up with spit in their face or a smack on the mouth.
So again, I completely agree that there is a huge issue in triathlon associated with safety, overcrowding, ignorance of the rules, and often unwillingness to follow the rules. It also seems like we are going overboard with the number of awards categories out there. Let’s remember, after all, that triathlon is a racing event! So as I agree with many of your grievances, I completely disagree with and am offended by the manner in which you chose to express them.
At some point somewhere down the line someone is going to point out Zincs obvious attitude issue and offer an adjustment if this even remotely indicative of his personality.
Sometimes it does not matter how right you are, if you cant communicate the message its meaningless.
While Zinc may have had some points he lost any credibility in the delivery, this goes for the TNT’ers, the Clydes and the newbies alike.
If you wish to get people on side in life, assasinating them in public or private is not the way to go about coalition building (war reference :))
You could have got this going and had everyone on side, as it is, my guess is half the people think you’re a complete ass having attacked them personally and the other half might agree with you but find you conceited with an inability to communicate.
Your message was lost as soon as you chose to denigrate people…
Yeah, I did make it sound too emotional and too uptight… something I did to a degree intentionally to increase the response to the inital post. I didn’t count on people being so negative, and I now realise that I lost a lot of credibility in not being cooler.
There were some good points raised, and I will no longer complain about Clydes in the first wave. I’m going to write a pleasant e-mail to the race director tomorrow and point out the problems that I saw on the course and some ways to solve them. If I feel so inclined then I’ll actually post it on this message board so that people can see that I’m not some crazed, elitist cyclist who likes to do triathlons…
No worries, chappy… people who know me actually realised that there was something up when I made that post. I think it’s best to make the mistake of being overly inflammatory on slowtwitch.com and not at some point when it really matters. I’ll work on delivery
I said that PEOPLE underestimate their calorie input, not just overweight people.
If you are calculating your input as accurately as Lance Armstrong does then you are a rare person but I’ll believe you.
I know a lot of fat people who aren’t lazy, you may well be the same as them, I’m prepared to accept that you are.
Unfortunately however either your measuring or your understanding of the energy input and output is going wrong somewhere. If you use more energy than you consume you will lose weight. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you are or how much you weigh. Your metabolism will only effect the amount you lose but you WILL lose.
If you’re using 500 calories more than you consume then where is that energy coming from, it can only come from your body.
If you don’t lose weight in those circumstances you are contravening one of the laws of energy(the second I think). “Energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change from one form to another”. I have to draw the line here. Asking me to believe this really is too much to expect!
One of your calculations is wrong, either input(easy to calculate) or output(difficult to calculate).
