Gina Kolata wrote:
To encourage exercise, perhaps people should be told to find an exercise, and an intensity level, that makes them feel good, Dr. Ekkekakis said.
This recommendation seems vaguely familiar to me.
Gina Kolata wrote:
To encourage exercise, perhaps people should be told to find an exercise, and an intensity level, that makes them feel good, Dr. Ekkekakis said.
This recommendation seems vaguely familiar to me.
Week 85: 11 hours 6 minutes in 9 runs, 3 of them workouts.
Tue 1 hr 27 min with 8x hill repeats.
Fri 1 hr 15 min on the treadmill with 25 min "tempo" (7:30/mile aka MP).
Sat 2 hr 49 min long run, about 18-19 miles.
The hills and tempos are really starting to have an effect. The consistency hasn't hurt either. This week (#86) will be a fallback week, 5-7 hours, no workouts. I'll test the left hand in yoga on Wednesday, if that goes well I'll add back the pullups and pushups to my weights routine next week (#87).
My new coach bailed on the group, refunded everybody's money. That's too bad, the only other coach I have access to (me) seems to be an idiot.
Alan Bennet wrote:
Week 85: 11 hours 6 minutes in 9 runs, 3 of them workouts.
...My new coach bailed on the group, refunded everybody's money. That's too bad, the only other coach I have access to (me) seems to be an idiot.
Based on prior posts not an idiot, merely severely eccentric :>)
Alan, as sure as sure can be I am an expert idiot coach. In fact I am writing a book tentatively entitled The self coached idiot. You sir are not an idiot coach.
Well I decided to build some base but I am keeping to my limits of no more than 30mpw and at least one easy day after a hard or long run followed by a 2nd easy day or at most short medium paced effort.
So I hit just short of 28 miles on 6 runs 5 days of 4.30 miles and one 6.45 miles all on frozen wood chips / chunks here is hoping for a nice thaw.
The only thing close to quality was today
Sunday quality 3 loops of glendoveer
6:43 per mile 14:26 at 84 MHR
6:38 per mile 14:15 at 88 MHR
6:56 per mile 14:55 at 80 MHR
I felt really good the slow pace I am blaming on the slippery footing really must be worth at least 10 secs per mile . Um or not either way I feel really good.
Alan,
I'm cutting right from the PDF. Most of the first poet went through, why not the rest I'm not sure. If anyone wants the rest of the information just email me.
Thanks,
Ken
oops, my alias today!
Edgewood wrote:
DrT,
You used a term I have never seen or heard. What is a Mona Fartlek?
Thanks in advance,
Edgewood
Mona Fartlek, used by Steve (Mona) Moneghetti.
Basically a structured fartlek of 2 x 90s, 4 x 60s, 4 x 30s, 4 x 15s with equal recovery jogs.
A bit of a chaotic week for me.
Mon - 1 hour kyak on the lake, also did a 25 min. easy run in my hiking boots.
Tue - 25km hilly run, the Tooborac loop. Slow 2.17 but lost some time rescuing an injured bird.
Wed - 2 hr mountain bike ride.
Thu - Hot day (105). Drove to Melbourne and spent 6 hours helping my daughter move house. Went out late, about 10pm for an easy 40 min run.
Fri - A hilly 50 min. mtn bike ride in the am. Left the car about 10k from work. Easy run into work 50 mins, finished with a brisk 800 in about 3mins barefoot on the inside of the velodrome. Ran back to the car after work (11pm)
Sat - 1 hour kyak in the morning. Out at 11.30pm for an easy 20 min trot aound town.
Sun - A gentle paced 37mins on some trails near work.
mo'pak, Edgewood
Thats the session, however the recoveries are usually undertaken as a "float" rather than a jog. Typically a marathoner would run the surges at 5km pace and then float the recovery at no slower than marathon pace. Its sounds rather easy on paper but can be a difficult and challenging 20mins of running if the floats are pushed along.
mo'pak - the temperature's continue to amaze me down there. Hope you are managing to cool off somehow.
WOC wrote:The rest of the Mayo Clinic summary:
Ken, is this her (Dr. Cheville) discussing this clinical study?
http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/cancer-research/forefront/exercise-helps-cancer-patients.cfmMy bad DrT of course the recoveries are floats, the whole 20 mins = a good pace average. I've seen 15min 5k guys go well past 6k in the 20 mins of fartlek.
Still pretty hot, about 35C today but heading back into the high 30s low 40s. No real rain since late Oct or early November.
hi all struggling due to internet conection
3 of 6 - TTD - 204:36 miles
mon 8:01 miles easy
tues 9:40 miles steady/easy ice + snow
weds 9:01 miles easy snow
thurs 9:40 miles "7x3mins hills" @ 85-92% max out @ 95%
fri 11:01 miles more snow plus drifts up the mountian rd
sat 12:27 miles "cruise intervals" ran down to main road
it was clear of snow also clear of traffic
6:24@81%/12:18@89%/7:10@84%/12:40@90%/6:31@85%
Sun 11:01 miles snowing
weeks total = 70:04 miles
Take care keep on running.
LucKY2b,
Yes, that is her, she seems to be referring to the study. I sent her an email and look forward to any reply. Pretty well sums up the problems - mainly in the oncologist office and uninformed patients. I had sent one of her earlier studies to Will Steele regarding motivation, which he didn't need, but he was always interested in exercise-oncology issues.
She seems to concentrate on behavioral issues, and I fear may still view exercise like physical therapy, something to be done after the main treatment and to improve quality of life. I think too many exercise-oncology researchers view exercise that way, and unfortunately it is doing little to motivate oncologist to utilize exercise as a part of treatment, and like your link mentioned, patients are more likely to do it if their oncologist recommends it. No recommendation, no exercise.
Therefore, I think many of the exercise-oncology researchers need to start measuring exercise like medicine (Response Rates, Progression Free Survival, etc.). In my opinion, and that of others I know, that is the only thing that is going to get oncologist attention. Also, if exercise improves the treatment then how can they not use it? The astounding thing is that no exercise-oncology researchers have even looked at exercise that way: treatment A vs. treatment A + exercise, which one produces better results, or if no difference, least side effects? (although Lee Jones at Duke did in mice and found exercise added to treatment was significantly better). Most exercise intervention studies have looked at quality of life measures during treatment, and some have started to look at biomarkers.
Ken
Ken, as a longtime Exercise Specialist in Cardiac Rehab, I just wonder if it's the initial fears of doing harm that cause reluctance of the oncologists, as well as of the "unknown" outcomes, too prescribe exercise. Certainly, more doctors are exercising for their own health than before. Fear of harm was the early perception of exercise in cardiology, if not all medicine. Perhaps you have already discussed, I have not read through this thread lately.
On another note, my wife and I are now entered in the USATF Masters XC races. After 36 years of running, I cannot remember when the last (if ever) time was that we ran a National Championships event. Certainly never in XC, so we'll see if this old dog can run a few new tricks :) If I can run the distance without stumbling too badly in the grass, and falling down, that just might be good, too!
Mike, good luck on your run at XC nats. Really wish I could motor over there.
I think you have a point about the reluctance to cause harm, but I also suspect doctors find it hard to convince patients to exercise without themselves knowing how much to prescribe. For many, prescribing too much would be tantamount to inflicting torture (OK, I overstate, but you get my drift.) The state of research certainly isn't helping in that regard. Pharmaceutical companies (and to a lesser degree hospitals that make their money primarily from medical procedures) really have little vested interest in funding this kind of research (as noted by Rtype's remarks a month or so ago.)
Meanwhile, I thought this was interesting.
http://scienceprogress.org/2013/01/blue-pill-or-red-pill/
And, as Ken had said earlier, it would be great if they could start entering exercise information into that EMR. It may also be the only way to effectively record long-term data so as to generate reliable studies on the efficacy of various levels of exercise on reducing all types of cancer risk.
Mike,
There are guidelines for cancer related fatigue established by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which used to be viewable without registering, but go there and at least you'll see the centers that comprise this network. Exercise is given category 1, their highest rating for empirical evidence. I'll try to track down an old email I sent that has every study they used for their evidence based guidelines, which in my opinion included some fairly weak studies, most were done by nurses.
Send me an email, I'll forward the Mayo study.
I hope the Joint Commission starts looking into this, it is inexcusable. I've spent hours talking with our retired oncologist scientific advisor about this, and with Lee Jones about it too. The main points: there is no reimbursement for exercise prescription like there is in cardiology; oncologist do not have the time to discuss exercise with patients; and most oncologist do not understand exercise physiology and likewise most exercise physiologist do not understand oncology (fair enough, it is difficult enough to specialize in one area). My former oncologist told me he did not understand exercise, he actually referred one of his patients to talk to me about exercise.
Trust me, I did not start this charity on a whim, I didn't even want to start a charity. I did a lot of research, made a lot of phones calls, and sent out probably 1,000 emails in the second half of 2011. When I discovered what I did, I could not walk away. There are reason why I started it, research gaps in exercise-oncology, and the above myopic views in oncology that I experienced first hand and see throughout the literature, and which was confirmed by the Mayo study.
Ken
Ken, I've clearly given the oncologists too much benefit of the doubt; sounds more like willful neglect.
So the Pac 12 Enterprises people did live stream the Dempsey indoor meet today but they failed to capture the last 2 heats...the Masters 200m! Not happy! I will have a talk with the camera guy/gal tomorrow to find out what happened. I hope they capture tomorrow's Masters 60m cuz I'm running in it. As u may know, 2 weeks ago, there wasn't any live or archived videos due to the Pac 12 red tape so no heats are available to view.
nothappy1 wrote:
So the Pac 12 Enterprises people did live stream the Dempsey indoor meet today but they failed to capture the last 2 heats...the Masters 200m! Not happy! I will have a talk with the camera guy/gal tomorrow to find out what happened. I hope they capture tomorrow's Masters 60m cuz I'm running in it. As u may know, 2 weeks ago, there wasn't any live or archived videos due to the Pac 12 red tape so no heats are available to view.
Ignore this post. I posted out of emotion without first researching what actually happened at this meet. Sorry about that.
Mike,
Are you aware of the International CardiOncology Society? They are concerned about the cardiotoxic affects of many cancer drugs. Do you do much with MUGA scans, LVEF, and cancer patients?
http://www.cardioncology.com/?&lang=EN&ID=
They've had one exercise presentation, at their 2010 meeting, that was by Lee Jones, PhD., at the Duke Cancer Institute, one of our scientific advisors. Lee would like to see exercise prescribed in oncology more like it is in cardiology. He also did a study on increasing exercise among cancer survivors, his main finding was that if the oncologist recommended it the patient was more likely to do it (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15454357
I have the full text which is more informative if anyone wants that).
WOC wrote:
:SNIP:
The main points: there is no reimbursement for exercise prescription like there is in cardiology; oncologist do not have the time to discuss exercise with patients; and most oncologist do not understand exercise physiology and likewise most exercise physiologist do not understand oncology (fair enough, it is difficult enough to specialize in one area).
:SNIP:
Ken, this basic tenant of logic is repeatedly responsible for lack of progress on many other medical fronts, too. If a drug is not the solution, our "system" is just not efficient.
Perhaps in addition to the worthwhile awareness and fundraising you are pursuing via
http://workoutcancer.org/,leveraging the emerging area of crowdsourcing is relevant?
This LRC forum is a small niche example. Maybe there is an internet based means to get more useful data from the masses (than is possible on a message forum) on what exercise is working / not working for cancer patients that can be sifted by researchers. Kickstarter is a successful example of "alternative thought" to traditional Venture Capital funding. Maybe something similar can be created to "kickstart" a data/research/proof/awareness process leading to an accepted mainstream treatment?
just a brainstorm idea