Fitness Marketing Hall of Shame

I came across this image on the fitbit website site, and it was just so ridiculous I had to comment on it. Fitbit is a pedometer that wireless connects to the internet uploading steps, distance and calorie burn information. So far, so good. They also have a website where you can enter additional information about what you're eating and your exercise routines. Also great - what gets measured gets done.

And then they have this copy: 80 calories in lunch, 2154 calories burned in work out. WTF. Who has an 80 calories lunch? Who does a workout that burns 2154 calories after that 80 calorie lunch? Let's put this in perspective, that apple she's holding, that's about 95 calories. Her lunch would need to be less than one apple. When was the last time you got most of the way through and apple and thought, "Whew, I'm stuffed!" I burn about 2000 calories in an olympic distance triathlon. I eat way more than 80 calories during that race. And, let's remember that this is a pedometer, used primarily for walking. I would need to walk 10 hours to burn 2000 calories. How many curls do you think this model would need to do with her 2lb dumbbells to get to 2000 calories?

The problem with this copy is it sets unreasonable expectations. I'd imagine the core demographic for fitbit are exercise newbies. One of the most challenging things about getting fit is understanding how much you burn and how much you take in. If you've bought a fitbit, it seems like you're really interested in gaining that understanding. But, then their website tells you that you should be having an 80 calorie lunch and burning 2000 calories at the gym. Either it will make your estimates totally off (that salad must have been less than 100 calories - it's a salad, afterall!) and you will not see the results you expect, or it will make you feel bad that you only burned 300 calories on that elliptical at the gym.

Mass State Race Plan: the Dry Run

Here we are. July. One last race before Nationals. Yeesh.

I'm thinking of Mass State as my last chance to really try out the game plan before the big day. I want to practice really pushing, keeping that "go faster" mentality from Griskus. But the big experiment is nutrition.

By the time I got to the run at Griskus, my stomach was a wreck. It was not interested in taking on anything else. I had originally based my race nutrition on Hammer's recommendations for endurance athletes. (There's something really satisfying about sinking your teeth into 144 pages of nutritional info.) The basic takeaways that I used were: Eat 3 hours before exercise and not again til you're moving, take in about 250 calories/hour, drink about 20 oz per hour.

After the race, I talked with my coach. She suggested perhaps the gel I was using was not mixing well with the sports drink. So, I've switched those up (now I'm entirely hammer-fueled). I also think that I was probably just trying to take on too much. I came across another local triathlete's blog, who suggests a lower calorie approach, so I'm reducing across the board and going for the lowest end of the hammer guidelines (150cal/hour, 16oz/hour). The hammer guidelines are written for people doing all sorts of endurance events, and although olympic races typically take me over 2.5 hours, they're not endurance in the traditional sense. I like olympic races because you can race them. The heart rate is higher, and I think that's why it's harder to absorb quite so much. Also, it turns out I'm not that big of person.

I've been trying out a less-is-more philosophy in training, and that's what I'll have on Sunday. Plenty of water before the race, a gel before the swim and one on the bike, a single bottle with half sustained energy and half heed (so it's not too sweet), then water on the run. On the whole, no-eating-before-the-race thing, I never do that in training. I always eat something before a workout, even in the wee hours of the morning, and it's usually within an hour of the session, so I'm having my clifbar when I feel like it. So that's the plan (and here's the spreadsheet).

Oh, right, except there's more to the race than what I eat. I've been approaching this race as a C race. My body is still feeling the effects of some very heavy sessions last week and early this one. I'm taking it easier now, but I'm still not to that itchy I-have-to-move feeling that indicates a nice taper. I want to race on perceived effort and not get too caught up in numbers or podiums.

OK, who am I kidding? I live for numbers. So here they are: last year I had a strong swim at this race, so let's do that again, 25 min goal (if I swam my pace from this morning I should finish in 22). That bike has got a wicked hill, twice. I averaged 18 last year for the whole thing with a negative split. This year, let's go 18.5 for the first lap and see what I've got for the second lap. The run felt long and wicked hot. It's supposed to be cooler this year. Goal for the run is to keep the legs turning over and shoot for 7:30s.

This should be fun.

Oh, and I've been playing around with my new gps watch. Here's my swim from Walden this morning. Looks like my sighting is improving.