We make holes in teeth!

Thursday, January 10, 2008

The Times Is Calling

As I told Walter yesterday I think the Times may be calling soon to ask me to write a piece for them. I base this on the fact that my prose lately is so riveting. As a non-biking factoid, did you know that the Exxon Valdez was only the 20th biggest oil spill ever? So with that, more bike rivets!!!


"I'm very familiar with Ross (you're not surprised, I assume) so I just wanted to hear if that was what you were doing. And it does make sense, certainly. You also state a key element that in order to make gains, you'll have to suck it up. That's for sure, no matter what plan you're on. I did a Ross-style 4 days myself this week, as I did nearly 2 hours each day on the mtb Monday and Tuesday, following 5 hours on the bike over the weekend. Boy, was I hungry last night. Being a "traditionalist" training-wise, Monday is usually a day off or a very easy active recovery day for me, but the weather has been too nice to pass up, and college teaching (on Monday) doesn't start until 1/28."

Good to hear someone is out enjoying the weather. Rain or shine, warm or cold, this cubicle monkey gets no benefit out of the January warmth. So nothing changes for me. By the weekend it looks like temps will drop back down to where road riding means cold toes but not cold enough to freeze things up on the trails. This is the winter. So it goes.

I'm not surprised you know Ross but I wouldn't have been surprised if you hadn't read him. He's definitely not traditional and a lot of people say it's the only new training philosophy in the last 30 years. Most of the books are really new ways to say the same things people have been saying for years. Ross takes a different perspective.

At the same time, at the end of the day he's also saying that you need to work hard to make gains. The one big difference is that he advocates working harder and resting more. Very few people suggest 3 days off a week. I think only Ross and David Morris do. Blocks blocks blocks.

So yesterday I felt more rested but by early afternoon I was dead tired and by night I was shot. Expected for sure. So far today I feel pretty good but we'll see how it goes. I'm still assessing whether or not to ride Friday and right now I'm leaning against it. You need to suck it up sometimes but I don't think it makes sense to be going through the motions at 5:05 am on a Tuesday morning. I probably should take Friday off for the sake of experimentation. Will my Tuesday session be lackluster whether or not I ride Friday? Only 1 way to find out.


"almost one year ago: i picked 3 of your final 4 as running mates for the '08 ticket Obama/Lieberman McCain/Giuliani"

Things remain interesting on the Dems side with Hillary's win in NH. Technically she lost, oddly, since they split the delegates 9-9 and for whatever reason Obama gets more "super delegates" than she does, 4-3. But Clinton won popular vote and keeps it an interesting race nonetheless. For me, all I care about is seeing an interesting game. I can say at this stage of my life that I just don't care who wins the election. I'll vote, but it won't bother me much who wins unless it's some second coming of Hitler candidate.

I'm happy to see Giuliani getting plowed so far because quite frankly I think he's a fucking Fascists. The crime statistics in NYC more or less follow that national trends of lessened violent crime which just so happens to coincide with the removal of lead from gas and paint. Yet somehow he gets credited with this. If 9-11 had never happened, he would not have the legacy he does. His approval rating in NYC was not so hot before.

But anyway, McCain with a big win makes it yet more interesting. Boy, things are WFO right now on both sides of the political coin. It's almost like UFC. Almost.

Labels: , ,


  • At 8:40 AM, Anonymous terren said…

    Norm - Don't know if you read Freakonomics but they make the very compelling argument that the crime-reduction wave that began in the early nineties (before Guiliani took office) was due in fact to the implementation of legal abortions in the mid seventies. The argument is that a huge increase in abortions meant a huge decrease in unwanted babies, which are more likely to become criminals than babies who are not aborted. Not very PC but it makes sense.


Post a Comment

<< Home


Accommodation in aviemore