HRMs - Still Redundant

I've never been a fan of using a HRM for distance training. Yes, HRMs do measure how hard one is working; however, there are too many determining factors that warp BPM in to an "impure" reading. I suppose there are few data outputs that are rarely complete pure, but what's the cause for all of the HRM hype?

Last January I started the new year with an open mind and a marathon on the brain. Thus, I committed to giving HRM training a whirl. I initially planned to use it solely for base training. The feature that beeps (REALLY annoying) if you get too high ensured that I kept a slow pace. [Background: early season, I tend to get hyped, train too hard and get injured.] After two months I figured I may as well keep wearing it.

I rarely use it as an intensity monitor during training (other than for long runs), yet I thought I could use it more for planning purposes after training. For example, I have ploted the corelation of HR (bpm) and pace (min/mi). The lower-right corner is the most desireable as it maximizes pace and minimizes HR (go faster for longer).

The above points and trend lines include runs that I wore a HRM (~65% of the time) for the below given distance ranges:
Navy: 10 mi or greater
Pink: 6 - 9.9 mi
Yellow: fewer than 6 mi

Clearly, the further I run the more the trend line shifts to the undesirable corner (upper-left), meaning I become more inefficient. On separate charts, I focused on the furthest outlying points from the trend line (for better or worse) to hone in on how I can maximize (minimize) my race efficiencies (inefficiencies).

Bad Outliers:
relatively out of shape (running beyond my current fitness level)
weather (hot/humid, snow)
terrain (hilly)
health (sickness)
lack of fuel (little/no liquids and food)

Good Outliers:
weather (cool/breezy)
steady pace (negative splits)
sufficient fuel (Gu and Gatorade)

I was crossing my fingers that more profundities be brought to light. Only the obvious was answered. HRMs - still stupid. And I schlepped that thing around for miles!

Homos and Heteros - they're just words

I researched some specific distinctions, of which I was curious. I expected to obtain a quick and succinct answer to my inquires about all of the types of Homos and Heteros but ran into a lot of conflicting information. Piecing together various sources and definitions, the below is a chart that I figure correct:

___________Sound__Meaning__Spelling______
Homograph ---- s/d ------- d ---------- s ----------
Heterograph --- s/d ------- d ---------- d ----------

Homophone ----- s -------- d --------- s/d ---------
Heterophone ---- d -------- d --------- s/d ---------

Homonym ------ s --------- d ---------- s ----------
Heteronym ----- d --------- d ---------- s ----------

*** s = same, d = different, s/d = same or different ***

The most commonly conflicted notion is that some of the above words are synonymous, which is completely false. By using simple etymology, I avoided making the same mistakes and possibly shed some light on the distinction of the subject. In actuality, "homonym" and "heteronym" are subsets of a combination of the "graphs" and "phones."

- Heteronym (aka Heterophonic Homograph) - different sound, same spelling; desert (to abandon) : desert (arid region)
- Homonym (aka Homophonic Homograph) - same sound, same spelling; tire (to become weary) : tire (what fits to a wheel)

The other two combinations of the "graphs" and "phones" do not have specific words for their subset distinctions.

- Homophonic Heterograph - same sound, different spelling; too (also) : two (2)
- Heterophonic Heterograph - different sound, different spelling; Purdue (awesome) : Notre Dame (suck ass)

From what I found, "graphs" (writing/spelling) and "phones" (pronunciation/sound) were pretty straight forward. Whether it be "homo" (same) or "hetero" (different), the distinction laid within only one of the above categories of the chart.

When it came to "nyms" (name), exact etymology translations became fairly ambiguous, hence the conflicting information. Another item of note, which is very obvious is that "meaning" is always different. I believe this category was used to make sure there was distinction from synonyms, antonyms, etc.

It's obvious why there is no distinct word for "heterophonic heterographs." However, I seek to find (or create) a word for "homophonic heterographs." If you know what this word is or have a good idea for one, please let me know.

By the way Pablo, wrong usage (Re: comment on 3/27/09 post), dumbass.

Ergonomic Boom

I'm not really in to fashion; however, I would say that I'm in to trends. What's fashionable at any given moment seems to based around what a select few consider it to be. Trends, on the other hand, are typically trackable or predictable, a more of a cause/effect relationship from which one can learn.

Recently, I've noticed a "second coming," if you will, of bendy straws. Everywhere I go, they appear more and more frequently - restaurants, grocery stores, etc. I've been trying to identify why there has been a resurgence. I have 3 theories:

1. Cyclical - like that of tight jeans, then baggy jeans, then tight again, it's a simple and healthy change for the sake of change.
2. Economic - stockpiled during the 80s, this unused inventory has been brought back out of hiding to save on expenses.
3. Ergonomic - riding the wave of the ergonomics crazy, flexible straws are simply trying to "get them some of the profits."

Perspective

Oh yea. We the MAN!

















Shitty.

WTF?!

Son of a _ !!!

Oh boy...

Antares is the 15th brightest star in the (our) sky. It's more than 1,000 light-years away.

- There definitely are aliens somewhere

- Not so sure about "the heavens" or any gods

- Our sun probably orbits something larger

- Paris Hilton, Hanna Montana, Anna Nicole, McFluffer Bitch-tits are all REAL important

- I'm so over the Earth

Say Peace toYour Piece

Buying a "conversation piece" translates that you are buying something not typically bought, other than to make you appear more interesting by filling awkward voids in conversation by way of a unique possession.

Why not buy something because you like it's function or style? Would you not have more to (genuinely) talk about with an item you had chosen for specific reasons rather than an item you know little to nothing about, other than it being labeled a "conversation piece?"

Buying based on your function/style gives 365 days per year of your wants/needs. Buying conversation pieces is buying for your guests, realizing the piece's value but a fraction of the time, assuming they even like what you have purchased.

Transition from "conversation piece" to "conversation peace" by cutting out the crap, posers.