wessimo said:

---

So do you still wear underwear under your bike shorts?

---

Of course!

This is a great idea, and I'm really happy it's getting going. I feel like I have asked my share of no dumb questions over the years and gained so much knowledge from this board.

My no dumb question right now is how to handle the bike situation for an out of town triathlon where one is flying to get there. For some context, it's for a non-competitive sprint tri in Nashville when Houston is home. Is it feasible or reasonable to rent a bike? If not, do you ship it? What would be the ballpark costs for those options?

Realizing fit and being on a decent bike is important, I am trying to help explore options and figure out what the options may be financially and logistically.

Does the race utilize a bike transport service?

If not, another good route is talking to your local bike shop. Many will pack your bike up ship it to a shop where the race is. Second shop can reassemble. Do the reverse after the race. No idea what the going rate is. I've been out of the triathlon game for quite a few years.

Quote:

---

it's for a non-competitive sprint tri

---

I'd rent in a heartbeat.

If you decide to try and do it yourself and are in DFW I have a Ruster Hen House bike case you're free to use.

I'll add a piece of advice. David Archy rayon/bamboo underwear from Amazon. Forget lined shorts for long distance running. Get good underwear instead. Good doesn't mean expensive.

Best way to increase cycling power?

Definitely would rent. I had amazing experiences renting for the NYC and Escape from Alcatraz. It's just one less thing to worry about. The peace of mind alone is worth it imho.

If you go that route, remember to bring your own pedals.

Ragoo said:

---

Best way to increase cycling power?

---

I went from 180 to 250 putting TrainerRoad on repeat. Back then I was using a Sufferfest 4 week plan PUTU tipped me off to. It was good for +10 watts / month. But I would expect any of their Build plans can accomplish the same thing.

wcb said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Best way to increase cycling power?

---

I went from 180 to 250 putting TrainerRoad on repeat. Back then I was using a Sufferfest 4 week plan PUTU tipped me off to. It was good for +10 watts / month. But I would expect any of their Build plans can accomplish the same thing.

---

Trainerroad does have some plans specific for it. I have been out of the triathlon game for a few years but intervals help if you are on the trainer.

When I did most of my training on the road what helped me was riding with riders more powerful than me. Had a Brit friend that was used to riding hills and outweighed me by 40 pounds smoke me. For a while I rode with several guys that qualified for Kona that also helped, plus they made sure you made every ride even if they had to come get you

Non-competitive sprint? Rent in a heartbeat. Go get it adjusted for you or give them your specs ahead of time if you feel like you need to be fitted. Heck, I thought it was fun to grab a random bike and see what I could do without a top of the line bike.

This may be a little outside the original intent of the thread, but I'll ask it anyway.

Is anyone else out there overwhelmed and annoyed by the amount of "health and wellness" information out there that is also tied to buying really expensive tests and/or supplements? In particular from the "functional medicine" community (that usually also trashes conventional medicine).

I'm mid-life, have gotten my weight/diet under control, and exercise regularly. So, at this point, I'm really looking to optimize my health, hopefully delay the most annoying effects of aging, and maybe even prevent or catch serious illness early.

Problem is, there are very few sources that I've found that I trust on this. I have read the book Estrogen Matters, and that was a huge eye opener. And I like The Huberman Lab podcast, but I've been making my way through the new one about female hormones, and even that expert has me rolling my eyes.

I'm just sick of hearing the terms "inflammation", "toxicity", "detox", "biohacking", "food sensitivity", "leaky gut", and others used in ways that just don't make scientific sense to me. Often, I feel the "experts" are just throwing these terms around to scare people into buying expensive tests and supplements (or their latest book).

Part of me thinks just keeping my weight and routine lab numbers in check is the answer, but the overachiever in me wants to know if I'm missing something. But wading through the massive amounts of information out there - most of it quite cringe-worthy - just ends up frustrating me. Being healthy shouldn't be expensive, but SO many of the podcasts I've listened to are pushing constant glucose monitoring, extensive blood work, and "concierge" medicine.

Anyone have sources out there that they trust that don't give off total snake-oil salesman vibes?

Quote:

---

Part of me thinks just keeping my weight and routine lab numbers in check is the answer

---

I'm more and more convinced that's it

wcb said:

---

Quote:

---

Part of me thinks just keeping my weight and routine lab numbers in check is the answer

---

I'm more and more convinced that's it

---

This is where I am as well. First, a lot of funding for research comes from biased sources. Second, the fact is we're learning a lot and what they are saying could be inaccurate even if they do have the best intentions in mind and no bias. Food pyramid anyone?

I'm going to agree there is a lot of bad research (or badly interpreted) out there, but I think these "functional medicine" practitioners are making it worse.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say that artificial sweeteners cause cancer in humans. There is no data that supports that.

And the myth that estrogen causes breast cancer. That one has been thoroughly debunked, but it still persists. Don't get me started on the "bio-identical" hormone debate.

And then there is the push to eat all "organic" or "natural" foods.

My BF (who wants to lose about 100 lbs) we were having this discussion last night. He was talking about this guy promoting "heathy keto" - which evidently this guy defined as all organic and grass-fed foods.

I told him I'll support whatever eating plan he wants to do (and that he thinks he can sustain) but it's about calories in vs calories burned. I told him he can lose weight eating keto, "healthy" keto, or the Twinkie diet if he just burns more energy than he consumes. Now, I'm not arguing that the Twinkie diet is a good choice, only that there is no "magic bullet" like some of these charlatans would like us to believe.

Then I go back to my own situation and still wonder if there is "more" I can be doing. I had a friend who is BIG into functional medicine (she sells supplements) who looked at my lab results. My A1C was 5.1, but she tells me "optimum" is now <5. I can't find ANYTHING to support this. I think her company also sells glucose monitors.

I am super interested in slowing the aging process and possibly preventing things like Alzheimer's. But I just can't get past all the shilling and scare tactics.

The questions I have:

1. Do these "physicians" publish?
2. If so, do their articles have financial disclosure statements?
3. If so, are they funded by the companies making the products they promote?

Two and three are issues with research of just about everything these days.

Part of my brain knows you're right. But the other part (maybe the scientist in me) has an interest in the cutting-edge stuff. Especially when it comes to hormones and aging.

Problem is, when I want to go on a deep dive, most of what I find is the garbage you describe.

And even with scientific publications, my experience in higher ed tells me that people publish for all the wrong reasons. It's about numbers, not quality. So, I'm even careful when I look at the peer-reviewed stuff. It's certainly better than a blog, and there is a hierarchy in the journal literature (some are more reliable than others), but no publication is without mistakes and retractions.

My biggest thing the past few years was just getting the data. I had to switch to a concierge-type practitioner to have a serious conversation about hormones. My annual exam, insurance-covered, big hospital system provider flat out said that's not what they do.

But I also know there is such a thing as too much data, and if you don't know how to properly interpret it, it's just noise.

I just find it interesting that many of the functional medicine doctors are doing exactly what they criticize "mainstream medicine" for - unnecessary tests, mis-diagnosis, and over-prescription of meds (or "supplements"). The difference is, none of the functional stuff is covered by insurance.

I guess where I am is maybe it's so much simpler than the "experts" want us to believe, assuming you can stick to a decent regimen of exercise and eat healthy most of the time.

Also, is everyone now sick with these vague, ill-defined maladies? I legit know some people with cancer, but the majority of people I know claim they are sick with "chronic fatigue", "brain fog", "leaky gut", "inflammation", and all the other buzz words I listed above.

Is it now fashionable to have one of these trendy diagnoses and spend thousands of dollars on supplements and IV drips and detox regimens?

I feel for you and those in your profession. How in the world do you compete with all the pseudo-science that's out there? A lot of it perpetuated by your former colleagues who now identify not as MDs but as "precision practitioners".

The disdain and almost hate that's built up for the medical profession, especially since Covid, really concerns me.

It's too bad that functional medicine seems to be caught up in buzzwords like "toxins" and "biohacking" and whatnot. To me, ideally functional medicine would strip everything down to "How well do you keep at a manageable level of bodyfat and how well are you able to move?"- none of which really require any drugs at all.

The goal should be able to take someone, no matter their lifestyle or schedule, and help them structure their diet and their exercise around that in order to stay at a reasonable level of body fat and preserving muscle- without the use of pharmaceuticals. It's possible, but the medical community at large has a hard time embracing it for MANY reasons, not just for purely financial gain

TXTransplant said:

---

I feel for you and those in your profession. How in the world do you compete with all the pseudo-science that's out there? A lot of it perpetuated by your former colleagues who now identify not as MDs but as "precision practitioners".

The disdain and almost hate that's built up for the medical profession, especially since Covid, really concerns me.

---

Eh, I don't compete with them, I'm an ER doctor, so typically my patients are focused on a singular problem. I just try to give the best care and recommendations based on peer-reviewed evidence, expert opinion, and personal experience.

If a patient would prefer to stick to pseudo-science, I don't take it personally. Sometimes it's difficult to distill medical literature down into palatable layman's terms that can dispel months to years of learned misinformation in a 5-10 minute encounter. It's frequently just not possible in a single visit, especially when oftentimes, I am competing with my own colleagues that have sold out to pseudoscience. How is the untrained individual supposed to recognize what is true and what isn't when getting conflicting information from medical professionals?

I just say my peace, challenge their misconceptions politely, and if it appears that they have built up a barrier that is impenetrable, I move on.

Being an ER doctor probably helps. Most of your patients have acute, often life-threatening conditions, as compared to those who "just don't feel good" and want to know why.

As a type 1 diabetic who wears a continual glucose monitor, I can't imagine doing so if I wasn't diabetic. I really don't get the push for this at all. From the limited amount that I have seen, non-diabetics blood sugar does not really move all that much.

That's pretty much what I thought, but I've heard more than one podcast/interview lately where an MD was advocating that continuous glucose monitoring is essential data for anyone who cares about their health.

I wouldn't waste time/money on it unless you are borderline type 2 diabetic. Your body is going to regulate your blood sugar levels on its own since, don't worry about it.

BTW doc, not that you give 2 chItz about my opinion, I think I could sit down and have a whiskey with you. You seem to get it.

Now to get back on topic...

Back when I trainer to run my first marathon (austin 2005) no one warned me about nipple bleeding. And while I was running it i saw a sign at about mile 17 that said "who needs toenails?" I had no idea what that meant until 3 days later when my toenails were on a bed of fluid. Lost them a couple of days later.

Oh, FWIW when I said my first marathon, it was also my last. I learned I was built more for staying and fighting than running away at a very VERY slow pace.

The first no dumb question I remember asking on here was when my toenails started to turn black (and eventually fall off). I really thought I had a situation on my hands - errr feet. I think I even called it "runner's toe" when I asked about it because I had seen that in some google search.

Some six years later, I average having about seven toenails intact at any given time and not a damn one of them look "normal". Younger and more naive days back then….

Always down for a good glass of whiskey.

Alright, I am in for a dumb question.

I am reading on the Woodlands half marathon site that headphones are not prohibited but they are strongly discouraged. I have been training with my powerbeats pro pretty much every run. I guess my question is this: Do I need to ditch the headphones? Lower the volume? Pick up some different ones that arent so "noice cancelling" like Shokz?

TIA. First time running a half.

TXTransplant said:

---

This may be a little outside the original intent of the thread, but I'll ask it anyway.

Is anyone else out there overwhelmed and annoyed by the amount of "health and wellness" information out there that is also tied to buying really expensive tests and/or supplements? In particular from the "functional medicine" community (that usually also trashes conventional medicine).

I'm mid-life, have gotten my weight/diet under control, and exercise regularly. So, at this point, I'm really looking to optimize my health, hopefully delay the most annoying effects of aging, and maybe even prevent or catch serious illness early.

Problem is, there are very few sources that I've found that I trust on this. I have read the book Estrogen Matters, and that was a huge eye opener. And I like The Huberman Lab podcast, but I've been making my way through the new one about female hormones, and even that expert has me rolling my eyes.

I'm just sick of hearing the terms "inflammation", "toxicity", "detox", "biohacking", "food sensitivity", "leaky gut", and others used in ways that just don't make scientific sense to me. Often, I feel the "experts" are just throwing these terms around to scare people into buying expensive tests and supplements (or their latest book).

Part of me thinks just keeping my weight and routine lab numbers in check is the answer, but the overachiever in me wants to know if I'm missing something. But wading through the massive amounts of information out there - most of it quite cringe-worthy - just ends up frustrating me. Being healthy shouldn't be expensive, but SO many of the podcasts I've listened to are pushing constant glucose monitoring, extensive blood work, and "concierge" medicine.

Anyone have sources out there that they trust that don't give off total snake-oil salesman vibes?

---

talk to a dietitian...

but seriously, it is a lot of information., which it means job security for me...it sucks because i have to listen to people talk about something that have wrong/misleading information about,,,

CFTXAG10 said:

---

Alright, I am in for a dumb question.

I am reading on the Woodlands half marathon site that headphones are not prohibited but they are strongly discouraged. I have been training with by powerbeats pro pretty much every run. I guess my question is this: Do I need to ditch the headphones? Lower the volume? Pick up some different ones that arent so "noice cancelling" like Shokz?

TIA. First time running a half.

---

Wear them but at a volume where you can still be aware of your surroundings. Almost every race will have this verbiage.