the white house press secretary
from the podium to come out here
and try to shame the media and
say it's somehow our fault that
Roseanne Barr put out this
tweet.
One question not asked of Sarah
Sanders by the way was yesterday
she said the president has more
important things to do.
Sometimes there are not more
important things than the
president's grudges that he
feels he has to nurse on a daily
basis and that's why he posted
that tweet going after ABC.
He just can't help himself,
Brooke.
That was in direct contrast to
what Sarah Sanders told
reporters yesterday that the
president had other things to do
and here he comes out today and
starts tweeting about Roseanne
Barr.
It just gets to the lack of
seriousness.
Forget about the fact that Kim
Kardashian is here at the white
house today.
And what planet that is anything
resembling normal because it's
not.
She shouldn't be here talking
about prison reform.
It's very nice that she is here
but that's not a serious thing
to have happen here at the white
house.
But really that pales in
comparison, that level of
seriousness pales in comparison
to what the president does when
he weighs in on the Roseanne
Barr tweet, fails to condemn the
racism at the heart of her
remarks and having the white
house press secretary coming out
here and shaming the media and
blaming us for making all sorts
of comments that need apologies
when they themselves owe the
American people plenty of
apologies for things that the
president has said over the
years.
And of course we know past being
For more infomation >> Jim Acosta goes off on Trump for hosting Kim Kardashian at the White House - Duration: 1:35.-------------------------------------------
How Much Fish Oil Should You Take for Your Eyes? - Duration: 1:46.
Is omega-3 good for eyes
yeah we discuss it in length but Omega-3 we
like to shoot for about a thousand milligrams a day of omega-3
and we like to combine that with the healthy
omega-6 so we want to have a two to one ratio
omega-6 to omega-3
and an healthy individual if your a little less healthy you want to
do about four to one ratio so omega-6
4,000 milligrams omega-3 1,000 milligrams
you can do that by eating things like avocados
hemp seeds chia seeds and
flax seeds so incorporating those at the salads
into your green smoothies is really going to help it out
and so
our omega-3 is a thousand milligrams
per day and we're actually doing our black Friday
Cyber Monday special deal of the day it's 20% off
our omega-3 use the code DRYEYESUPPORT one word all caps
on our website I'll put a link and the code
in the show notes here below but
you want to shoot for a thousand of those per day and then you want to shoot
for about 4,000 of the omega-6s
Hey it's Dr. Travis Zigler CEO of Eye Love and I wanted to thank you for watching
the video now if I could ask you a favor if you're
watching this on Facebook make sure you like our page or you can leave
a comment if you have questions below now if you're on Youtube though
make sure you click this button to subscribe to our channel
I've hand-picked a video so you can click that button to
select the next video that I
hand-picked for you to watch or you can buy our products by clicking this button right
down here so again Dr. Travis Zigler thanks for watching
-------------------------------------------
First Clinical Trial of In Utero Stem Cell Transplant for Alpha Thalassemia - Duration: 2:51.
We have an opportunity to cure a disease
before a person's born.
In our Fetal Treatment Center,
we see many fetuses with birth defects all the time.
Some of those birth defects can actually be treated
with a stem cell transplant.
If you do the stem cell transplant after birth,
you have to give the baby a lot of different toxic medicines
to make room in the bone marrow.
And, that can cause diseases on its own.
This is the world's first clinical trial
of a blood stem cell transplantation in the fetus.
If this treatment is successful,
it could save the parents and the child
from a lifetime of illness.
(cello notes playing)
So in this first clinical trial,
we're focusing on a disease called Alpha Thalassemia Major.
And we focused on that disease because it is fatal.
Alpha Thalassemia Major is a disease in which
the red blood cells don't form correctly.
And so, the fetus gets very sick.
When we take blood stem cells from the mother
and we put them into the fetus,
the hope is that they will go to the bone marrow
and give rise to good red blood cells
that can then carry oxygen and treat the anemia
that the fetus is experiencing.
(electronic notes popping)
First, we have to harvest the stem cells from the mother.
And then those cells are taken to the bone marrow
stem cell processing lab where the blood stem cells
are isolated and purified.
And then, they're injected back into the umbilical vein.
People used to think that the baby was enclosed
in this impermeable space.
But the truth is that the cells go back and forth
between the mother and the fetus.
And that trafficking it turns out,
is actually really important in allowing
the fetus' immune system to tolerate the mother's cells.
(upbeat happy music)
This is the first case in which we're using
the mother's cells based on the biology that we discovered
and using a high dose of cells placed directly
into the fetus' blood stream.
And we think that doing all three of those things
will allow us to have more success
compared to when it was tried before.
If we find that this is safe and effective
for this one disease,
we hope that we can apply it
to a host of other blood diseases,
the most common of which would be Sickle Cell Disease.
One of the things about being a doctor
is that you're constantly seeing patients
where you know that with the developments in science,
you could help them better.
You could help them more effectively.
But those therapies aren't currently in the clinics.
So I love being able to, in some weeks of the month,
go into my research lab and test out therapies
that we can finally bring to patients.
(electronic beeps)
-------------------------------------------
Best Dehydrator For The Money 2018 - Duration: 3:28.
welcome to unmatched value today we're going to be talking about the best
dehydrators for the money if you're new to our channel we did things a little
bit differently we offer you three selections of value standard and premium
our value selection is the lowest you can go in price and still get a good
product our standard selection is the best all around our premium selection is
the top of the line product but at a higher price you can find all of our
selections in the description down below along with the date of the last time
they were updated we do it this way so we can give you the most up-to-date
information when we were making our selections for the best dehydrator we
looked at four main points the first thing we looked at is size and tray
volume when you dehydrate fruits and vegetables you want to make sure that
the time you put into making them will be rewarded to dehydrate something can
take up to eight hours or more it takes electricity and your time preparing the
food item to be dehydrated that's why when we selected a product we focused on
this size and tray volume so you can make large batches and be able to
preserve as much as you want the second thing we looked at was timer and auto
shutoff not all dehydrators come with timers and auto shutoff dehydration of
food takes a long time and you can be caught up doing something else when you
finally remember your dehydrating something it can come back to find
tasteless bark chips instead of jerky or whatever you are dehydrating that's why
we recommend dehydrators with timer auto shutoff so you won't have to worry
about waking up in the middle of the night to turn off that dehydrator the
third thing we looked at was thermostat you want you a dehydrator to have at
least 100 to 160 degrees thermostatic range because you want to
be able to dehydrate all kinds of things some herbs meets fruits and vegetables
can be dehydrated only at a certain type of temperature otherwise it's not safe
to eat our last point is if the trays are
bpa-free not a lot of lists online focus on if there dehydrators are bpa-free
for us it was one of the most important things we looked at when plastic heats
up it releases all sorts of toxins and chemicals I'm sure no one wants their
food to be cooked in something like that keep in mind dehydrating takes 8 hours
or more giving you all the chemicals and toxins time to saturate into the food
that's why all of our recommendations are BPA free if you haven't yet please
check out our selection in the description down below we hope this
video helped you thank you for watching we want to give a special thanks to
whoever subscribed or liked the video we hope you have a wonderful day and we'll
see you next time
-------------------------------------------
Gerilyn's Wash Day Routine for Braids - Duration: 8:51.
For more infomation >> Gerilyn's Wash Day Routine for Braids - Duration: 8:51. -------------------------------------------
There But for You Go I, from Brigadoon - Christian Pursell and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir - Duration: 3:59.
♪♪
♪♪
♪ THIS IS HARD TO SAY,
♪ BUT AS I WANDERED THROUGH THE LEA, ♪
♪ I FELT FOR JUST A FLEETING MOMENT ♪
♪ THAT I SUDDENLY WAS FREE OF BEING LONELY. ♪
♪ THEN I CLOSED MY EYES AND SAW THE VERY REASON WHY. ♪
♪♪
♪ I SAW A MAN WITH HIS HEAD BOWED LOW. ♪
♪ HIS HEART HAD NO PLACE TO GO. ♪
♪ I LOOKED AND I THOUGHT TO MYSELF WITH A SIGH: ♪
♪ THERE BUT FOR YOU GO I. ♪
♪ I SAW A MAN WALKING BY THE SEA, ♪
♪ ALONE WITH THE TIDE WAS HE. ♪
♪ I LOOKED AND I THOUGHT AS I WATCHED HIM GO BY: ♪
♪ THERE BUT FOR YOU GO I. ♪
♪♪
♪ LONELY MEN AROUND ME, ♪
♪ TRYING NOT TO CRY, ♪
♪ TILL THE DAY YOU FOUND ME, ♪
♪ THERE AMONG THEM WAS I. ♪
♪ I SAW A MAN WHO HAD NEVER KNOWN ♪
♪ A LOVE THAT WAS ALL HIS OWN. ♪
♪ I THOUGHT AS I THANKED ALL THE STARS IN THE SKY: ♪
♪ THERE BUT FOR YOU GO I. ♪
♪♪
♪ LONELY MEN AROUND ME ♪
♪ TRYING NOT TO CRY. ♪
♪ TILL THE DAY YOU FOUND ME ♪
♪ THERE AMONG THEM WAS I, ♪
♪ THERE AMONG THEM WAS I. ♪
♪ THERE WAS I.
♪ I SAW A MAN WHO HAD NEVER KNOWN ♪
♪ A LOVE THAT WAS ALL HIS OWN. ♪
♪ I THOUGHT AS I THANKED ALL THE STARS IN THE SKY: ♪
♪ THERE BUT FOR YOU GO I. ♪♪
-------------------------------------------
Which is Worse For You: Sugar or Fat? - Duration: 13:29.
[♪ INTRO]
We've all heard for decades about how terrible fat is for us, especially saturated fat.
In the 1970s and 80s, everyone was explicitly told to cut down on foods like butter, cheese,
and beef, to avoid heart attacks and strokes.
But now, apparently, they're ok?
Or good for you?
Or… something?
And it's sugar that's bad!
Sugar's what's killing us!
If we just cut sugar from our diets, we could rid the world of not only heart disease, but
also obesity, diabetes, and even cancer!
The change in attitude might seem extreme, but the case against sugar has been building
for decades, while the one against saturated fat has been weakening.
And yet, though we all love a good villain, when it comes to the health effects of your
diet, things are rarely that simple.
Today, we're taking a look back at the complex history of nutrition science to try to understand
how saturated fat became public enemy number one.
And how, when doctors zeroed in on fat, they overlooked the damaging effects of sugar.
But that doesn't mean it should be the new saturated fat, or that fat is entirely exonerated.
And while there still isn't an easy answer as to what diet is best for losing weight
or preventing heart disease, cutting down on things like saturated fats and refined
sugar is probably a good start.
Back in the late 1940s, Ancel Keys, a physiologist at the University of Minnesota was puzzled
by the fact that American businessmen seemed to be dying at an alarming rate from heart attacks.
These middle-aged men made more than enough money to to afford quality food.
So why were they the ones keeling over?
He hit upon an idea, often called called the diet-heart hypothesis, that would forever
alter 20th century food habits.
That's the notion that the amount of fat you eat, specifically saturated fats—the
ones where the fatty carbon chains are all connected by single bonds, and therefore maxxed
out, or saturated, with hydrogens—leads to high levels of fats in your blood, which
then glom onto the walls of your blood vessels to cause coronary artery disease.
It's kind of like how pouring too much bacon fat down your drain can clog your pipes.
Keys was especially concerned about blood levels of the fat cholesterol because it's
found in the fatty build ups in blood vessels.
So he did a few small studies to test his idea, and then decided to go big or go home.
In the Seven Countries Study, he and his colleagues looked for correlations between diet and coronary
artery disease in about 13,000 middle-aged men in the U.S., Japan, Finland, Yugoslavia,
Italy, Greece, and the Netherlands.
By 1970, the early results were in, and total dietary fat didn't seem to matter.
But the groups of men with the highest average saturated fat intake tended to die more often
from heart attacks,
and across the globe, blood cholesterol levels correlated with saturated fat consumption.
Another large epidemiological study, the Framingham Heart Study, further supported a link between
blood cholesterol and the risk of heart disease.
These studies showed robust correlations, but they still were just that: correlations.
Many people, though, assumed that these results meant that reducing fat intake would protect
people against coronary artery disease—which is not something a correlational study can actually show.
A handful of researchers did try to do randomized controlled trials—the gold standard for
testing medical interventions—to see if low saturated fat or low cholesterol diets
actually helped prevent heart attacks and deaths, as the hypothesis predicted.
But nutrition trials are notoriously difficult.
Some of the results suggested lowering saturated fat could help, but most were small studies
and they were hard to interpret.
And each one used a slightly different diet, replacing in the saturated fat calories with
different things.
So, by the late '70s, there was still no conclusive proof that reducing saturated fats
could actually protect hearts.
But that hadn't stopped the diet-heart hypothesis from becoming mainstream—it seemed to fit
most of the available data.
And many experts felt the danger of cardiovascular disease was too high not to recommend some
some change in what Americans were eating.
So in 1977, the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs released its
new dietary goals, telling Americans to get just 30% of their calories from fat — down
from 40% — and to limit the saturated fat to 10% of the total.
The guidelines also suggested reducing dietary cholesterol and refined sugar, and increasing
complex carbohydrates, but those weren't really talked about as much.
Other countries followed suit, so soon, pretty much everyone was told to shun butter for
margarine, and supermarket shelves were quickly stocked with "low fat" options.
But from the beginning, critics questioned those recommendations, pointing out that the
specific diet now being championed had never been tested in a trial.
And some suspected refined sugar was a bigger problem.
In fact, the Seven Countries Study also showed a strong correlation between the consumption
of sugar and heart attacks, but this finding wasn't given much additional study because
it looked like saturated fat was the better predictor.
And it wasn't until this century that we learned the sugar industry helped ensure its
product was overlooked.
For example, in 1967, they paid three Harvard public health researchers what would now be
about $50,000 to write a review article in The New England Journal of Medicine —a highly
influential journal—that highlighted the role of fat and downplayed any involvement of sugar.
But twenty years later, after a half century of fat-hating, the tide began to slowly turn
toward against them, both in the lab and at home.
Not only had research not found conclusive proof that saturated fats were the problem,
new analyses of the collective past studies showed that the link between saturated fats
and heart disease was much weaker than previously assumed.
And new observational studies were finding that quickly digestible carbohydrates and
added sugars were independently associated with an increased risk of heart disease.
Also, the whole idea that "cholesterol" was bad turned out to be much more complicated,
undermining part of the premise for why fat was supposed to be so evil.
To their credit, researchers in the '60s and '70s had a vague sense that the type
of cholesterol mattered.
But they didn't fully understand how cholesterol moves in our blood, including the roles of
the different lipoproteins that ferry it around.
When doctors look for "cholesterol" levels in blood now, they tend to look at triglycerides—the
total amount of fat—as well as the total amount of cholesterol.
They also look at whether that cholesterol is being shuttled by low-density lipoproteins
or LDL, the so-called 'bad' cholesterol, and high density lipoproteins or HDL, the
'good' cholesterol.
High LDL is a risk factor for heart disease, but having more HDL is usually considered
good, though researchers are still trying to understand the different sizes and subtypes
of each and how they help or harm.
The problem is, foods that are high in saturated fat can raise both HDL and LDL, so they might
seem more harmful if you just focus on total cholesterol or LDL.
So as a new century began, people started rethinking the war on fat, especially since
the advice to lower fat intake wasn't helping people stay healthy.
By the early 2000s, low-fat diets didn't seem to be doing squat for most people.
Obesity and diabetes — both of which are risk factors for heart disease — had skyrocketed.
And that might be because, while lots of people embraced low-fat foods, they had opted for
reduced fat snack cakes or cereal loaded with sugar or other carbs instead of healthier
things like fresh fruits and veggies.
So a different diet—the low-carb, high-fat Atkins diet—became all the rage, and it
did seem to help people lose weight.
Scientists started to pay attention to it, too, and their initial results were promising.
In short-term trials of 6 months or so, people lost a modest amount of weight and tended
to slightly lower triglycerides while boosting HDL.
Diets high in sugar and refined carbs, on the other hand, tended to do the opposite,
raising triglyceride levels and bad LDL cholesterol, while lowering good HDL.
And in both animals and people, excess sugar was linked to elevated blood pressure—another
risk factor for heart disease.
The weight of the evidence against sugar over the past twenty years in particular has tipped
the scales, and now, you've probably heard all about how sugar is the worst thing ever.
It sure is an easy target; since sugar provides no nutrients other than calories, it's hard
to defend.
You certainly don't need refined sugar to stay alive.
And that's led a lot of people to call it 'toxic' and blame almost anything on it,
even diseases with strong genetic links, like inflammatory bowel disease or cancer.
But careful review of the science suggests that's taking the backlash a little too far.
While most of us are likely eating too much added sugar, no one really knows how much
is too much.
And connections to diseases, even ones that seem clear-cut, are not always so straightforward.
Scientists don't actually know whether eating sugar can cause diabetes, for example.
Eating too much sugar can certainly lead to weight gain and obesity, which is one of the
biggest risk factors for the disease.
But different people break down and use sugars differently, and so right now many experts
think sugar consumption itself isn't causing diabetes—complications from being overweight are.
Which is also likely the case for heart disease and other aspects of health.
We know that high cholesterol in the blood, specifically LDL, is a risk factor for heart
disease, but so is high blood pressure and obesity.
How food fits into all of that isn't simple, since dietary fat and sugar both affect some
risk factors.
Other habits matter, too, like whether you exercise or smoke.
And researchers are still trying to understand what sugar actually does to the body.
Quote "sugar" comes in various forms, the relative merits or demerits of which scientists
are still debating.
And the same can be said of quote "fat."
If you ask a cardiologist today about whether saturated fat is bad for you, you may get
a surprising answer: it depends.
That's because whether or not saturated fat increases cardiovascular disease in any
given study seems to change depending on the exact type of fat being studied, what the
source is, and what it's replaced with if it's removed from the diet.
The extent to which sugar and saturated fat are to blame for heart disease, or pretty
much any disease, is still being heavily debated by researchers.
At the end of the day, though, you still have to eat, and all of this doesn't really give
us a satisfying answer as to what your diet should look like.
And I hate to tell you this, but head-to-head tests of low-fat and low-carb diets haven't
identified a clear winner.
While low-carb diets seem to be a teensy bit better in the short term, when scientists
study people for longer, the difference declines.
Low-carb diets seem to lead to slightly higher increases in good cholesterol and bigger drops
in triglycerides, but the two diets perform about the same for other heart disease markers.
And neither is terribly effective for people trying to lose weight.
Typical weight loss after a year is barely over 5 kg.
But you can always find individuals who respond really well, dropping like 30 kg, and those
who gain weight while on the diet.
This has led some researchers to think that maybe certain people, either because of genetics
or metabolic reasons, do better on a low-carb diet, while others benefit more from a low-fat
regimen.
One especially attractive idea is that people who already are a little insulin resistant—a
huge risk factor for type two diabetes—would probably fare better with fewer carbs and
more fat.
But even this more nuanced approach doesn't seem to hold water.
In a 2018 study of about 600 people, assigning diets based on genes or insulin levels didn't
help.
Everybody did about the same after one year, regardless of whether they went low-fat or
low-carb.
Scientists are still hoping to find other markers, like those related to the microbiome,
or how much certain genes are expressed, that could determine what diet is best for you.
But for now, what we're left with is a bit of a draw.
There are some things that can be gleaned from this big, nutritional mess, though.
In general, doctors still recommend cutting down on saturated fats, but it's important
to pay attention to what you eat instead.
Swapping out saturated fats for unsaturated ones, like those found in nuts, is usually beneficial.
That is also often true if you exchange the fat for whole grains, but not if you sub in
other carbs, like sugar.
And it probably wouldn't hurt to cut down on refined sugar in general, too.
But if we've learned anything from nutrition history, it's that a blanket prohibition
on any one thing isn't likely to be the answer.
Sugar vs. fat is a false dichotomy, and when you think about it, that makes complete sense.
Of course too much fat is a bad idea.
And so is too much sugar.
But just as eating the occasional sweet is not going to give you cancer, and the occasional
steak isn't going to give you a heart attack.
Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow, which is produced by Complexly.
If you want to watch other awesome Complexly videos about nutrition and health research,
you might want to go check out Dr. Aaron Carroll over at Healthcare Triage.
[♪ OUTRO ]
-------------------------------------------
Police: South Fulton house shot up in retaliation for teens' killing - Duration: 0:48.
For more infomation >> Police: South Fulton house shot up in retaliation for teens' killing - Duration: 0:48. -------------------------------------------
Man sentenced for drive-by killings in Parramore - Duration: 2:01.
For more infomation >> Man sentenced for drive-by killings in Parramore - Duration: 2:01. -------------------------------------------
Prince's Purple Driveway Turks & Caicos Mansion Is Up For Auction - Duration: 2:47.
Prince's Purple Driveway Turks & Caicos Mansion Is Up For Auction
Princes luxurious property in the Turks and Caicos has now gone to auction.
In the aftermath of his death in 2016, the singers estate has been hard at work handling his assets and unfinished recordings.
In the near future, an unfinished memoir penned by the Purple Rain hitmaker is expected to hit bookshelves, as well as the release of an album produced in tandem with Jay-Z, an orchestral tribute tour put on by The Roots Questlove, and a boatload of other memorial material and events.
Princes island retreat in the Turks and Caicos is now the last of the artists properties to be put on the sellers market since his death.
The plot of land spans a vast 5.74 acres, and comes replete with two private beaches, a marina, and several buildings that total more than 10,000 square feet a pop.
However, the most significant feature is the winding purple driveway, a vibrant signifier of Prince and his cultural omnipotence.
The sealed-bid auction will officially close on July 12, and prospective bidders must provide a $100,000 registration deposit in order to participate.
Estimates reveal that the property may be sold for $15 million.
-------------------------------------------
Live With Lee: Gearing Up For Country Fair - Duration: 3:09.
For more infomation >> Live With Lee: Gearing Up For Country Fair - Duration: 3:09. -------------------------------------------
DNC makes push for votes of Puerto Ricans living in Florida - Duration: 1:28.
For more infomation >> DNC makes push for votes of Puerto Ricans living in Florida - Duration: 1:28. -------------------------------------------
Farhan Akhtar and Vivek Oberoi collaborate but it is NOT for a film! - Duration: 3:54.
Farhan Akhtar and Vivek Oberoi collaborate but it is NOT for a film!
It is a known fact that Farhan Akhtar and Vivek Oberoi are currently exploring the digital space together with the web series 'Inside Edge'.
With Farhan being the producer, Vivek features as one of the prime character in the said series.
And now the two have decided to join hands again.
But this is not for a film or series; rather it is for a noble cause.
Vivek Oberoi and Farhan Akhtar have decided to come together to fight against cancer on the occasion of World No Tobacco Day (May 31, 2018) in association with Cancer Patients Aid Association and Bank of Baroda.
A source close to the two, commented on it saying, "Professionally, Vivek and Farhan have had a successful track record, be it Inside Edge season one (produced by Farhan), wherein Vivek's menacing act of Vikram Dhawan was well received by the audience, critics and the industry.
It also went on to become a good success in the web series space.
Personally, they share the common passion – of serving the underprivileged and have been part of several charitable .
As a part of the initiative, Farhan Akhtar has also decided to perform a gig and that too without charging for it.
According to a recent report, YK Sapru, the Chairman and CEO of CPAA confirmed the same adding that the musician-filmmaker-actor will be doing this gig free of cost.
He was all praises for Farhan's generous heart and added that he wants to use this platform to pull in young crowds.
And they are intending on spreading the message of 'no tobacco' via music.
Besides Vivek and Farhan, the event will also be attended by Hon.
Ranjit Patil (Minister of State Home), Priya Dutt, Milind Soman, Dr Pankaj Chaturvedi (Professor & Surgeon) and Dr P.S.
Pasricha (Former DGP – Maharashtra) and representatives of WHO and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
-------------------------------------------
Champions of Change - Buddy Benches for Kids - Duration: 1:40.
For more infomation >> Champions of Change - Buddy Benches for Kids - Duration: 1:40. -------------------------------------------
Triathlon Training for ENDURANCE vs training for STRENGTH - Duration: 8:25.
- Morning, Trainiacs.
Your boy made a couple of mistakes over the weekend
and I am paying for it right now.
More on that just a little bit later.
The meat of today is about the difference
between endurance and strength endurance.
(upbeat music)
(hip hop music)
As expected, didn't have a whole lot in me there.
No, no, no, that was bad.
What happened over the weekend
is I did a long ride on Sunday.
Halfway through the long ride, 60 K into 120 K,
ran out of fluids.
I was planning on the town stop,
that I was halfway having some water, town store was closed,
so I'm still dry here two days later,
and then yesterday what was supposed to be
a recovery swim was much, much, much harder.
Recovery needs to be recovery
or you end up like I was today,
pretty flat, didn't do much on the sprints with the gang,
and instead of a 20 minute run, I did a 10 minute run.
Adjust, don't bail.
For starters.
If you get tired enough, you bail.
Let's get into the goods, shall we?
Trainiacs, this is gonna be just a regular,
old fashioned sit down.
So the difference between endurance and strength endurance
is huge and it has a lot of implications with...
Bonk your head Pete?
A lot of implications to how successful
you are in triathlon.
Traditional endurance is like your engine,
it's your heart and lungs, it's your central fitness.
It's your body's ability to perform an aerobic exercise
for a long period of time.
Strength endurance or muscular endurance is peripheral.
It's your arms and legs.
It's your body's ability to perform a specific task,
muscularly, many, many, many times in a row.
Traditionally, the old way of doing things,
I would associate more with just endurance training.
This is building up your engine.
Now, strength endurance is much more modern.
This is where a lot of the training methods
are starting to go and the reason for that
is that traditional endurance training
of just building your engine over and over and over,
mostly as building your VO2 max, has a very short top end.
It's really only about 15 to 20 percent higher
than a sedentary person can do
and it basically maxes out here,
and just constantly trying to build that engine,
you're not really going to be able
to turn a pony into a thoroughbred race horse.
But with strength and muscular endurance training,
the focus is more on building your top end speed,
your muscle's ability to fire really quickly,
good form, good technique, and delaying your body
from breaking down which tends to be the bigger issue
in endurance races, Half Iron Mans, Iron Mans,
full marathons, even Olympic distance triathlons,
triathlons that are longer than say an hour in distance,
these are the ones where you don't see people saying,
"Oh, I couldn't work hard at the end,
because my heart and lungs just wouldn't let me,
they couldn't pump any harder."
What people say is, "Oh, I was starting to fail
and getting a problem in my calf or my hip
or my back started getting sore."
These are muscular endurance problems,
and this is what will cause form breakdown
and what will cause you to slow down.
So let's talk first about the
differences in training methods.
Traditional endurance training is just going out,
doing long, steady kind of two, zone two,
zone three out of five, just that kind of hard,
but not really hard sort of effort,
just building your aerobic system.
Strength endurance training is more muscular.
It's heavy, heavy volume in the pool with many repetitions.
It's low gear work on the bike.
It's hill reps on the run.
It's form based running as opposed to
a lot tempo based running, and the thought is,
that working on your form and allowing it
to stay really good until longer in the race
will make you faster, because at that point in the race,
it's not about who can run twitchy fast,
it's about who can slow down the least.
Now, talking about the role that
strength itself plays in each category,
traditional endurance training coaches would say
that strength really doesn't play any sort of part,
because it's all about the engine, and strength,
if anything, it just builds bulk and it makes you slow,
whereas with strength endurance training,
there's a really big focus on strength
and your body's ability to maintain postural fitness,
stay upright, not collapse, not fail
towards the end of the race, so in the off season,
there might be a huge focus on heavy strength,
big strength, building your body's ability
to stay really strong and fire more neuromuscular patterns.
And then come race season, there's also a really big focus
on just postural fitness, staying nice and upright,
keeping all those side stabilizer muscles
really nice and healthy, making sure that you don't
have any points of failure during a race.
And the time required in training
for typical endurance training,
there have been some studies that show
to actually get the amount of benefit that you need
to become really fast in traditional endurance training,
you need to be doing literally 12 to 24 hours a day
of long, slow, steady work to build up your engine,
whereas in muscular and strength endurance training,
it's much more about quality over quantity.
It's about hitting those really high peaks in speed
and in strength and then about building
a nice, low aerobic base that's just enough
to keep you going throughout that race,
but keeping that technique really solid
throughout the entire time by being strong.
So a couple of things come from this.
Number one, at the end of this video,
I will show you a playlist to
all of our strength training videos,
which I think are really important in strength endurance,
if that's what you're into.
And number two, if this is sounding really good,
this is all gonna be part of our new coaching platform,
and there will be a link in the description below
to the Kickstarter where we are
basically just gaging interest in is this style of training
something that people are demanding,
because this is what it's gonna be based on.
I'm a quality over quantity kinda guy.
Now, we got some bike fixing to do.
Come on. (hip hop music)
- [Man] If I wheel this one back there?
- Oh, that's gonna cost a pretty penny.
So, the total tally is front hub something
on the road bike, loose chain, it's been like two years,
so it's stretched out, because I put down
so many frickin' watts on it.
Cut the seat post on the Ventum,
cut down the head tube on the Ventum,
and problems with the front derailer.
Just gotta get it lined up, but I can't do it.
Support your local bike shop, folks.
Good friends like James and Heather and Jeff and Rick,
and everyone there.
Alright, later Trainiacs.
If you aren't yet subscribed,
hit the subscribe button below.
If you are subscribed, just continue doing you.
-------------------------------------------
Herman and Sharron - Star Parker, Founder & Pres. of Center for Urban Renewal & Education - Duration: 28:31.
For more infomation >> Herman and Sharron - Star Parker, Founder & Pres. of Center for Urban Renewal & Education - Duration: 28:31. -------------------------------------------
DisAbility Services Student Resources for NSO - Duration: 0:57.
Hello, I'm Dennis Sarine with Disability Services.
Welcome to Amarillo College.
Disability Services provides supports for students to be successful in the classroom.
Some of those could be for our hearing impaired students, interpreting services, note taking
services, scribe services.
Some disabilities are easily seen and some aren't.
Whether it be a physical impairment, a mental disability, or mental diagnosis, or learning
disability, we're happy to serve.
Our services are offered at all Amarillo College campuses.
We are physically located--our offices are in the Student Service Center, specifically
the Advising Center.
And so, if you follow the signs, you'll be to find us.
If you have questions regarding your disability, then come over and set up an appointment and
let's talk about what we can offer you to support you in your classroom.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét