Posted by Prisoner at War on 10/31/07 19:06

On Oct 31, 1:39 pm, "Tony S." <email_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, much too rushed and very short on details. Even VO2max levels weren't
> given as numbers but as "fair", "superior", etc.

Indeed! The old lady ranked as a "poor" in the beginning, but it was
never mentioned poor relative to what: other seniors in their late
sixties, other sixty-somethings who run, or what? And they didn't
give an update on her later VO2Max readings, though they said everyone
improved dramatically.

> There was very very little science in the show or on the website. The main
> findings were that 1) aerobic fitness comes fast, and 2)muscles and joints
> take much longer, producing injuries. That one was able to finish in 4:09 is
> unremarkable given that he rated as "superior" in Vo2max from the first
> test.

Yes, and it would have been great if they had explored that a bit.
Same thing with the fat lady, and the ex-football star...heart attack
guy, AIDS guy...I was even curious why that flip was waving two flip
flags at the finish line...it's funny how the show kind of paralleled
the emotional state of many a beginning runner, I suspect: good start,
then a ho-hum now-it's-over finish, with points in-between something
of a blur.

> I agree, it was like a cheerleading show to say that, yes average people can
> finish a marathon in 5-7 hours,

Most of them seemed to have stopped at various points. Well, heck,
anyone can quite easily finish the marathon, in that case! I've
always thought the point of it was to run continuously, even if
slowly. If you stop -- however much warranted, nevertheless -- it's
just cheating. You didn't run the marathon. You walked and ran 26.2
miles, with rest in-between. Heck, I can do that right now!

> overcoming injuries, but without losing
> weight or fat, since that takes more than mere exercise. (They said just the
> one lady actually lost weight and fat %). They were saying it's healthy to
> exercise blah blah, but who didn't know that already. Very sad how low NOVA
> has sunk slowly but surely over the last 20 years.
>
> -Tony

Wow, it's been in decline that long???

I don't watch it all the time, but this is the first time I've gotten
so close to being disappointed in a Nova episode. I'd get the DVD if
they had a special edition director's cut with much more information.
There was hardly any science at all, much less cutting edge science.

[Back to original message]