<p>If it’s important to you to interface with a treadmill, don’t get ANT protocol (Garmin, Magellan). I use ANT, but with the new treadmill I’m going to be using a Polar strap while I’m on it. Right now I just use my Garmin watch (obviously no mileage count) for my HR and total time and splits while I’m on the treadmill.</p>
<p>Last night I convinced myself that I could stand to run outside at noon today- got out the really warm stuff (26 and blowing snow flurries with some patches of black ice). Got up this morning, looked out at the dismal grayness and put away the warm stuff and packed indoor clothes. Won’t have much time, since I’m surprising H with tickets for a Jerry Jeff Walker documentary that is premiering at our local theater. This week isn’t going well…</p>
<p>You could get an ANT+ footpod for your Garmin. They have a simple calibration adjustment and I bet you could get one dialled in to match your treadmill distance in just a handful of runs. Just do a half dozen runs and record the distance from the treadmill and the footpod. Average those six, and enter the calibration factor in your Garmin to tweak the footpod. </p>
<p>That way, you would have all of your treadmill runs uploaded to your computer along with all of your Garmin GPS runs. I don’t use the footpod, but I do the same thing with an ANT+ sensor on Airdyne. Fantastic way to keep everything uploaded to one place.</p>
<p>I don’t yet trust the footpods to be accurate (my issue…) even with calibration. I feel like I vary my stride a lot. What I do now is still upload the Garmin to my RunningAhead log. It has everything I want except total distance which I just plug in from the treadmill reading. </p>
<p>MOWC—I remember when those footpods first came out. I had a satellite GPS, my friend had a footpod. We compared results obsessively.</p>
<p>I have been training, but not posting. The chest pull is completely healed, but now the weather is thwarting my efforts. I am still seeing the trainer and spinning, but not getting to swim or run as much as I would like.</p>
<p>Anyways, it has been a challenging time for me. My H says any run is better than no run, but I am being sorely tested right now. I was running on the treadmill but decided I needed to get outside. It was horrible, I couldn’t catch my breath and my heart rate was racing. I couldn’t go more than 1/2 mile without walking. I seriously thought about giving up, I signed up for this 8k mid-March and I still have no idea how I am going to pull this off. This was Saturday and it was humbling. </p>
<p>I’ve been outside 3 times since then and it’s getting better, slowly. You know those people you see running and wonder how they can run that slow. That person is me! I am slowly finding I can breath if I slow down and try to keep my heart rate down but I still got it up to the 180 range. And I am cold. I went out and tried to find some warmer stuff to run in (of course I should have looked on here as Idad posted a bunch of great stuff). I found that when they show cold weather running clothes, they are for weather in the 20-30’s range but here it’s close to 0. Yesterday I wore 4 layers on top and 2 layers on the bottom. 2 pairs of gloves but only 1 hat lol! </p>
<p>I feel like I need to run outside as the treadmill wasn’t doing it. Not at all, it was not preparing me for this 8k. </p>
<p>In other news, H is still not better with his pinched nerve. I’m still driving him to his business meetings but even that is too hard on him so he’s farmed out his out of town meetings for a while. I can’t imagine how people deal with chronic health problems, I’m stressed and my eating is terrible. </p>
<p>deb- Don’t be so hard on yourself. I just read an article saying that treadmill running IS running and will prepare you just fine. You will have time to get used to being outside once the weather improves. I agree- “cold weather” clothes are not usually enough for 0-20 degrees. I’ve been wearing the LuLu puff jacket under 30 degrees and I NEVER thought I would wear something like that for running. Also, your HR will spike with all those clothes on and it is not optimal running temps at all. I’ve actually used two hats, so I have you beat there. I have a thin lycra Balacava (or however you spell it) and I’ve put a wool knit hat over it. I am SO over these temps.</p>
<p>Deb922, “A” for great effort and trying something new - and trying to stick with it! We are surely being tested this year weather wise in many ways. If it’s not snow, it’s frigid cold. If it’s not frigid cold, it’s both. And, many times frigid cold, lots of snow! Are you running on snowy surface??? I watch people running in the snow and admire them, but the idea of falling/slipping scares me too much.<br>
When I have those “uncertain of myself” runs, I do find that slowing down helps quite a bit. </p>
<p>deb, if you have troubles with breathing in cold temperatures while you can run just fine on a treadmill in the warmth of your home, you might have a mild EIB (like I do). Usually warmer (and more moist) air will take care of the problem. Do not get discouraged! As MOfWC says, running on a treadmill is running.</p>
<p>Thanks for the encouraging words. I’ve put off posting because frankly I’ve been so discouraged. </p>
<p>The one good thing I do have is footing as our roads are snow covered and not icy. I have these things for my shoes with spikes and they work great. They aren’t yak tracks as I hear they are not that great but mine have 1/2 inch spikes. I got them at the local running shop. </p>
<p>I recently read that in snow or ice you should totally forget about pace and just go by effort. I know when I was in PA a few weeks ago the footing wasn’t bad, but there was a lot of chop, and my pace was incredibly slow. I just decided to not let it bother me since I was getting a good workout anyway.</p>
<p>Absolutely agree. TM running IS running, and when it is icy out it is the best running you have. I used to live in a snowy climate and was just happy to get outside on icy and snowy days. Forget about pace when you are worried about falling and finding the least snowy place to run. </p>
<p>deb, do not feel discouraged! It is amazing that you even ventured out to run in such conditions! Big kudos for that. I’m such a pansy, LOL - I can ski just fine when it is cold and snowy, but for running… I hop on my treadmill without hesitation! :)</p>
<p>You don’t see me even attempting to run when it’s freezing out. I really don’t get along well with being bent over panting like a dog in 20 degree temperatures. And, my little walk/jogs don’t work. There’s no way to dress for that on again/off again activity. It is really best to avoid the whole sweating like a pig thing when dressed for winter weather. And since I start sweating when I just think about running, that’s a problem…</p>
<p>I learned a lesson on my hike last week. Do not overdress. It’s insidious how much you can sweat. In 15 degree temps, strenuously hiking uphill, I should be wearing a thin long-sleeve baselayer t-shirt and a Power Stretch fleece hoody. Period. I’d freeze to death walking to the mailbox in that, but it’s the only way to keep from sweating with the exertion of a steady uphill climb, which is similar to running.</p>
<p>I’m realizing that the best approach is a thin long-sleeve tech t shirt/baselayer with some kind of lightweight fleecy thing on top of that – a power stretch hoody or an even lighter mid/heavy weight power dry top. Wind will cut right thru either of those options and ventilated any perspiration. If that gets too cold, then add one of the 5 ounce unlined wind breakers to block the wind and increase the warming of the mid layer or a vest of some sort that warms the core but still allows ventilation (I think that’s what MOWC’s down Lulu is doing with the fabric panels down the sides.</p>
<p>I also work really hard to not do “intervals” outside in cold weather. It’s best to do everything you can avoid that all out huffin/puffin/sweatin’ level of exertion as getting wet and overheated makes it really tough to be comfortable when dressed for winter.</p>
<p>I would like to comment on the topic mentioned earlier regarding low fat versus high fat diets. There was no health difference after eight years. I would throw out that eight years isn’t enough time to determine the benefits. Genetic mutations that lead to cancer can take time and development of heart disease takes time. I bet if the study continued for thirty years, there would be differences health wise between the two groups.</p>
<p>If one took 10k people and half smoked and half did not, I bet in 8 years the difference in number of lung cancers wouldn’t be that great but if you look at the numbers after 30 years there will be a big difference in lung disease in smokers versus non smokers.</p>
<p>It’s possible that if they had let the study run longer they might have found some benefit to the government recommended diet. But, it was the largest (and most expensive) intervention study in the history of the world. They followed 49,000 women for eight years. The average starting age of the women was 63 and they got plenty cancers and coronary vascular disease in the sample as you would expect from that age group. What they didn’t get was any difference in the group that lowered their fat consumption and the group that didn’t. It’s a shame they didn’t include a third group that lowered their sugar consumption. Would have been pretty much a freebie compared to the overall cost of the study.</p>
<p>At the very least, until such time as some study shows an actual benefit to adhering to the government recommended diet for eight years, its seems fair to ask why this diet is still being recommended as a matter of government public health policy. No scientific basis for it has ever been established and, from the sheer size of this Women’s Health Initiative study, it’s not from lack of trying. At some point, it’s only reasonable to think that maybe this recommended diet isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.</p>
<p>There are other dietary interventions where risk factors for coronary disease, such as elevated triglycerides or elevated blood glucose, improve significantly in a days consistently in study after study.</p>
<p>Those studies have been done and the link between smoking and lung cancer is scientifically demonstrable every which way you slice it. So clear that it hits you up the side of the head. Some stats from a recent British paper:</p>
<p>*Chance of death from lung cancer by age 75</p>
<p>0.2% lifelong non-smoking men
15.9% smoking men
9.9% smoking men who quit by age 60
6.0% smoking men who quit by age 50
3.0% smoking men who quit by age 40
1.7% smoking men who quit by age 30</p>
<p>It isn’t subtle. It’s not hidden in small studies. Or short studies. Or some studies, but not others. It’s crystal clear. Smoking is linked to a massive increase in lung cancer and quitting smoking is linked to a significant decrease in risk. Someone who has smoked their entire life and quits at age 60 lowers their chances of dying of lung cancer within 15 years by over a third. Quitting by age 50 lowers the risk by two-thirds.</p>
<p>The government public health policy makers have no trouble offering scientific support for their recommendation to quit smoking. They don’t, however, have any basis for their recommendation to use nicotine gum and patches, but that’s a different issue. If there were that kind of evidence that lowering dietary fat is beneficial, there wouldn’t have been any need for the billion dollar Women’s Health Initiative study to try to establish a link.</p>
<p>6 miles while watching the inaugural women’s downhill snowboarding event. I thought that I was getting tired at the end of my run, but as soon as I saw the old man stepping out on the ice and doing a bunch of crazy jumps, my legs suddenly became un-tired. :)</p>