Back in TN after 3 days off. I've definitely regressed in fitness and there will be no point in racing next weekend. I think I was in better shape a month ago. Being at my parents house without the ability to cross train, being sick with a cold, and pulling back my running frequency, took it's toll.
Cold, sunny, 31º and an occasional light N wind, but mostly sunny at the Sewanee track. Brought a variety of footwear. Instead of keeping my nose to the grindstone with some hard intensive tempo on turf, I thought I might run on the track since my legs were fully recovered from the beating I took on the hills Friday. I first ran a 50m on turf, then put the Adidas flats on and ran a relaxed 100m in 14.2, then thought I should test the waters with a negative or even split 400m in spikes. I was going for 32/33, but I over paced the first 100m, and my 3rd 100m was real slow. It didn't work, I bailed after 300m. Then ran a lackluster 150m and that was it. Pretty pathetic. But, conditions were tough, really very cold.
Stretches, drills, 50m stride
Adidas Takumi Sen 8 trainers on
100m - 14.20 (relaxed)
Adidas Prime Sp 2 spikes on
300m - 49.00 - (bailed on a 400m) 14.62, 16.48, 17.90
150m - 21.42
If I had to do it over again, I would have been more productive doing 3x3w/3 on the track or 4x150 on turf. Maybe getting gun-shy to the pain. Been a week since my last tempo workout.
Was really light though, 139 lbs after workout
---
Bought this new smart scale - Oxiline MD pro. I got a couple of interesting readings off it then it shifted to kg, wouldn't go back to lbs, and refused to work again. Probably will send it back.
It measured my body weight at 139.3, and my body fat % at 10.1%. My visceral fat was very low also (1 on a scale of 1-13). Maybe not super accurate but perhaps close.
Look up the definitions of accuracy and precision. Impedance measurements are known to have accuracy issues but if you control certain parameters that influence measurement they can be precise and spot trends. There are several age related serious diseases more likely in lean people, one being osteoporosis. Healthier to be a little fatter.
ReplyDelete"Underfat" is 8% in younger males, 13% for men over 60. Serious athletes range from 6-13%. So if you are around 10% you don't appear to be outside reasonable parameters
ReplyDeleteThere is no data for a large set of old males at 10 percent body fat. Fat levels correlate with many parameters, hormones, immune compartments, etcetera. In the old super lean immune response could be suppressed. Immune system response is already seriously depleted due to immunosenescence which is a major reason cancer rates are high in old people. Hard training also suppresses immunity, albeit most data shows recovery to baseline with rest. Fat levels being consistent with elite athletes doesn’t change any of that and can add to the risk of making decisions that could increase risks, like trying to minimize impedance measured body fat through lifestyle. So better to ignore it and be a few pounds fatter. At least for most of the year.
DeleteYou are not female, underweight and do not lack weight bearing exercise. Usually factors most quoted for osteoporosis.
ReplyDelete