July 31, 2009
This post originally appeared on Sep 13, 2007.
BikeMonkey Guest Re-Post“I was hanging with the leaders until the second climb when I cracked about halfway up.”
“I just kept to my pace on the climb and passed three guys who cracked trying to ride with the front group.”
The use of “to crack” in cycling is different from “blowing up” in that it implies, to me at least, a psychological component. “Blowing up” just means you rode yourself beyond your sustainable level of effort, roughly speaking over into the anaerobic side of the power station. In contrast “cracking” is applied to situations in which the going is tough (generally climbing) and a racer (or rider) just stops maintaining the pace which is otherwise sustainable. There is a slowdown in speed, of course. A loss of cadence and of pedaling smooth circles. A dropoff of HR from the max sustainable threshold for aerobic activity. The rider drops a gear and just plods on at a survival pace. In other words, quits. It’s subtle because after all you are still technically riding up the hill or finishing the race; the difference is that you aren’t really trying anymore. You aren’t at maximal (or targeted) sustainable effort.
moments beforehand I had received this email:
I hope someone does to your baby what you do to your mice.
was in and of itself highly educational.
July 30, 2009
A recent post from Terrified Tabetic (@TTabetic) over at Pull My Finger points to a startlingly idiotic set of comments on federal funding priorities for HIV/AIDS and cancer. Terrifiedtabetic has already pointed out the callous and slightly hypocritical brush-off of “behavioral” causes of cancer while lambasting “behavioral” causes of HIV/AIDS.
July 29, 2009
The third DrugMonkey blog post I wrote was entitled Wikipedia on MDMA, posted Feb 9, 2007. I was reminded of this because of a recent call from the NIH for scientists and science writers to jump on the Wikipedia bandwagon and edit all sorts of science-y entries. An NIH radio bit and transcript, Wikipedia Academy entry and a Wikimedia Foundation press release have been posted.
This follows an earlier call from the Society for Neuroscience to encourage its members to edit Wikipedia entries on neuroscience topics.
It isn’t a bad idea. I just happen to think that it may be a little naive when it comes to the more contentious topics. Such as the potential for certain recreational drugs to cause harm, alternative medicine topics, vaccine-autism linkage, etc.
My original concern was as follows:
July 28, 2009
The Speaking of Research group has posted an open letter criticizing an analysis of research redundancy which forms the backbone of a USDA complaint authored by an ARA extremist*. The open letter points up the essential vapidity of the complaint and I encourage you to go read. (There are links to activist sites there so you may wish to be cautious about either providing it any more traffic or providing your IP address.) Returning to a few prior posts on the responsible and well regulated use of Animals in Research, I note that I never took up this most interesting topic for discussion, namely the nature of “unnecessary duplication” of research using animals.