One of cranky scientists’ favorite activities is to complain about how the news media cover scientific advances. I’ve been pretty cranky lately, so, as a follow-up to my criticism of a recent journal article, I decided to complain about everyone else’s coverage of this article. Here’s the link to my latest outburst:
Marathoning Is Hard; So Is Science Journalism
Thanks to RunnersWorld.com editor Mark Remy for taking an interest in my ranting.
Fantastic outburst! I'm glad someone who actually read the original article finally posted common sense. Keep up the great ranting! :)I'm off to eat 5 lbs of pasta and go for that sub 2:00.
The endurance calculator gives REALLY interesting results for me. If I enter the data for when I was age 40 (140 pounds, age 40, resting heart rate of 36, and a 2:37:50 marathon), I get 2:31:50 for conservative, and 1:44:10 (3:58 mile pace)for aggressive.At age 40 I did run 2:32:50 at the Seattle Marathon, having run 2:33:00 the year before. I guess I should have been more aggressive in my racing and given Haile Gebhresellasie something to really work for :-)Bob
Bob, thanks for the excellent example of the perils of estimating VO2max from heart rate (especially resting HR). Since your resting HR is so low, your VO2max was probably estimated to be 75 mL/(kg*min) or so…. Which still doesn't fully explain why you were supposed to set a world record, of course….
My Track Record 
Leave a reply to Bob in SeaTac Cancel reply