My wife's mother had a car accident...couple weeks later still had some pain in chest. CT revealed 4-6 5MM or less lung nodules. Follow up in 12 months.

Zero lung nodules obv >>>>than any. But, sounds like you are in as good a spot as possible.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/faq-20058445

I don't have health issues. What health issues?

Insurance? I get my medical care abroad, very affordable. This time they advised against because I could die.

I proudly pay the individual mandate. Since I came back to the US I have paid $10000+ in individual mandates. This goes to subsidize fat people which obviously upsets me. But it also goes to people like my nephew, who has a pre-existing genetic condition.

As I get older should I get insurance? Sure I was thinking about it because it's now very close (individual mandate fine vs insurance). However it looks like the Donald wants to make me richer, and they are about to remove the individual mandate. Cool, more monies.

No insurance, I am healthy and can afford anything.

I will explain the lat issue for the donks. Fakeb recently posted a pic with zero lats. Even worse than my picture.





But I know a long time ago I posted a reverse double bi. It was impressive my friends. Think like this now



So there you have it, I hope issue is resolved. So far the only posted pic of somebody with similar pullups has been realb. A true honor, ty.

loco,

Seems you figured this out, but weird lumps/nodules/etc are extremely standard in totally healthy people. (There are things such as benign cysts.) Between lapka's total lack of medical knowledge (lol @ the idea you have "health issues", beyond maybe a weird desire to post crazy things on the internet) and the general fear mongering without basis, I figured it'd be worth mentioning that doctors generally just paint by numbers and it works great to treat stuff. I mean whats the other option, they cut you open and scrape one off your lung to biopsy it? k. #science

If actually interested there is a decent amount of writing about how less testing/doctoring is actually better in cases where some cancers were vastly overtreated. In fact, in some cases where you 100% have cancer, they just tell you to come back in 6 or 12 months and may never actually treat it. (IE Prostate cancers that had >100% relative survival rates that ended up improving after they stopped treating people for lol "cancer".)

NB: Atleast you weren't accused of not loving your crotch fruit.

I am not worried about it. I wouldn't be surprised if CT scan + 2 chest x-rays increased my chances of cancer more than that nodule.

And that is really the entire reason that "Oh get more tests, what if you die tho!" is mostly just people who can't math/reason/logic being normies.

Seems like you got this figured out tho. glgl.

11/24
W2D3 Running
Fast run 4 miles
31:07 (170 bpm according to Fitbit, too high!!)


So my resting heart rate is about 57.

My theoretical max heart rate is 180.

I started looking at some research and most running should take place between 65-70%. That formula is

Resting heart rate + (Max heart rate - resting heart rate)* 70%

So 143. My 7 mile run on Sunday was 146 bpm average. So that's perfection, my easy runs are fine.

But today's fast run was 170 bpm! That's over 90% and that's not my hardest run of the week. The tempo run is the hardest.

I am returning the Fitbit today. I can't stand how complicated it is to load music on it.

But I still want a watch with GPS, heart rate, and music. Forget Higdon, he is an 86 year old who doesn't even science. The fast run between 70% and 90% IMO looks to not be backed by science.

I am pretty sure my runs for my goals should be
Easy run
Intervals
Tempo run
Easy run/intervals
Easy run

So I am going to be making some changes, more science less voodoo.

Many coaches, myself included, recommend an overall balance of hard/easy training (whilst avoiding the moderate zone), a method now becoming known as ‘polarized training’. The avoidance of ‘moderate’ training is the key, and runners focus on ‘easy’ paced running for the majority of time, with a sprinkling of really hard work (where you really can’t chat!) mixed in for approx 20% of the weekly mileage.
Not only do you train a more efficient fat burning body, but the benefits mean you recover faster, and can therefore put in some harder efforts, rather than being chronically fatigued from ‘mid zone’ running’

Recent research from Dr Stephen Seiler et al from the University of Agdar, Norway, backs up this methodology; finding that high volume, low intensity training stimulates greater training effects for recreational runners, in particular when using the 80/20 split of easy/hard training.
A conclusion backed up by the 2014 Salzburg study published in the Frontiers of Physiology, found that the concept of ‘polarized’ training demonstrated the greatest improvements.
After a 9 week training period, runners using the 80/20 easy/hard split had improved their ‘time to exhaustion’ by a whopping 17.4% and change in peak speed by 5.1%.

This group had completed 68% of their training in the low intensity zone, and 24% at high intensity, with only 6% in the ‘moderate’ zone.
So what does that mean for you? How do you put this into practice?
In a world of high intensity training fads, advice to slow down might seem counterintuitive, but it works The key to running further, and ultimately faster is to slow down, especially for your long runs. Easy to say, but harder to do. If you take only one thing away from this article, it’s this – faster is NOT always better.
When you first start out running, you’re likely to have one pace. As you get more experienced and your fitness improves, you will need to develop a wider range of paces. Your long run or easy pace may be 90 seconds – three minutes slower than your ‘top end’ pace.

What's the wager again? 10k? I'll see if N1 wants to back me.

Also I now know the greatest measure for fitness, VO2 max. Any challengers besides pokerRon? Crickets.

What was your vo2? Taking the under at 20

The highest VO2 maxes are all cross country skiiers. There is also the pikes peak marathon champion (26 miles plus 7800 ft of elevation!!!

So as suspected, elevation is brutal. Hiking is awesome, that's where my road to fitness journey began. Highly recommended.

It's great for my age but not anything spectacular.

Sick

loco; other than the music, how do you like that watch? Does it do the VO2 max? Do you have a chest-strap monitor to check the beats against? I've heard the watches tend a little high especially during exercise.

I had a Fitbit before but obviously this the newest one. Most of these watches give you a number for VO2 max. And if you average my mile time VO2 with my 5k VO2, all three align. Probably using same method.

GPS is new and pretty cool. Hopefully this works abroad. Accuracy seems solid, if I make a weird short turn it will catch it.

I also have my suspicions that heart rate is not great at great numbers. For example today it said I was at 180 for the first 3/4 mile and then I was at 156. IMO it should throw out that first 3/4 mile and give me a more reasonable average. Instead it gives me 170 and now I am freaking out that I am training too hard.

I need music on this so I can run without my Pixel 2. I loved my iPhone SE, I could run with it. I am going back to it for runs until I find a better watch.

I know the apple watch would be it, but I am an Android user now. Apple got too greedy and I got sick of them.

Yes. It has been well established for sometime now that Soulman is the fittest H&Fer of all time.

Imagine the vo2max for cross country salsa skiing.

loco,

I guess I missed all of the excitement, but I'm glad you're OK.

Actually seeing a doctor formally is definitely preferable to just sending some stuff to various doctor friends. Unless one of your friends happens to be a cardiologist specializing elctrophysiology who is willing to actually see you in person, the advice you get isn't going to be the best you could get.

If it's not your plan already, you should just take all the records you've got to whatever respectable Colombian cardiologist you can find and get an informed opinion.

Might as well throw in a pulmonologist to get an opinion on the lung nodule. Sounds like cost is really not an issue for you down there.

Also while your decision not to have insurance is likely +EV, I'm gonna assume you thinking that you can afford anything is just hyperbole. If you really think you can, you've got no imagination. Even something like a car accident, if you get unlucky, can **** you up irreversibly in extremely expensive ways.

I already saw two doctors and a cardiologist. I was in the hospital for over 5 hours.

The cardiologist is the only one that really counts in your case.

Unless I misunderstood you, it sounds like you did not believe the assessment of the cardiologist that saw you. If you didn't, then getting another opinion is the next step and quite standard.

On the other hand if the cardiologist that you did see saw nothing to worry about and gave you a satisfactory explanation of what all the fuss was about, then I think you're done (with respect to the cardiac issue).

Garmin Fenix.

And my MI was only like $125k total. But I'm obv glad I have insurance.

No Garmin watch can be loaded up with music. No action.

Not sure how much my bill is going to be. No helicopter ride that's for sure.

They didn't say anything, they just let me go. No restrictions on exercise.

Obviously they are emberrased and thought better to say nothing.

Ah, I got nothing then. I just use my Samsung Gear, but the people I know who like more use the Fenix. I don't think I can music on mine either.

My helicopter ride was $19k. Kinda expensive for a 6 minute ride...

The hooker business model!