Training on Empty

Half Marathon Mishap And Those Who Went Bonkers

2026-03-04T19:48:00.000-08:00

By now, most people in the running community and even a few outsiders have heard or read about the mishap that occurred at the US 2026 Half Marathon Championships in Atlanta. With about two miles left in the race, the female leaders, who were well ahead of the pack, were led off course, resulting in those in back ultimately crossing the finish line before the misdirected runners could make up lost time.

Almost immediately, the media and pundits, or self-proclaimed experts online, commented before USATF had even issued a statement. One so-called expert, in particular, David Roche, absolutely lost his shit and has been carrying on ever since.

It turns out that the lead female, Jess McClain, decided not too long ago to work with Roche, a questionable decision in my eyes, but to each their own. I'm not sure why anyone would work with Roche when he has taken on at least one athlete who has served a doping ban. His write-ups about training, threshold runs, and coaching in general are questionable, some calling them over-simplistic and others calling them flat-out wrong, but again, people can choose to work with whomever they please.

I'll skip over McClain's jaw-dropping progression that landed her in elite territory...ahem, and focus more on the resulting circus in response to what went down. I wonder if anyone quick enough to bitch and moan before any information was revealed feels any different now that it has been noted that the reason the lead car veered off course was because it was responding to a call about an officer down. I suspect not, at least not the ones who went absolutely apeshit. Narcissists gotta narcissist, after all. A foot race is far more important than anything else in some circles.

Despite McClain handling the situation with at least some grace, given this was a selection race and one with prize money, money, money, her coach did anything but, showing he's not a great representation of his athlete. Several individuals argued that runners should have the course memorized, while others insisted that athletes in the lead are too focused on their efforts to remember complicated courses with multiple turns. I would agree with the latter and think most do; however, I wouldn't so quickly dismiss those arguing otherwise and treat them like garbage. It's as easy to say, "Here's why that's not the best solution," and present an opinion as it is to call others idiots and their ideas trash.

I was notorious for going off course when I ran, so it was helpful to have the course marked or a lead vehicle to follow. I actually veered off course in the state meet in high school. Luckily, the other girls who followed me and I were able to get back on track quickly. I won the race, probably because the adrenaline kicked in when I realised I was going to have to catch up to the new leaders once I turned around. But I digress.

Roche was quick to publicly blast anyone suggesting runners know the course. Arguing online is fine, but when you promote yourself as being part of a husband-and-wife team that's all about fun, inclusion, community, and kindness, tearing people apart in the bitchiest way possible doesn't really fit the brand.

What's worse, though, is that he and his wife took to their podcast to bitch even more. Early in the episode, Roche admitted that he enjoyed making fun of the "idiots" online, meaning those who disagreed with him on this issue. You can hear the excitement in his voice as he inches further up his already too-tall horse. In that same episode, Roche boasts about his lawyer background and how this will help him navigate the situation for his athlete, but neglects to mention that his license was suspended in 2020 for reasons unknown.

Most people agree that McClain deserved the win and all that goes along with it. USATF came out with a statement of sorts, basically avoiding the blame as much as possible and assuring everyone that the organization is working on a solution. In the meantime, others in the race have acted with honor and dignity, some even offering to give up their spot so that the three misdirected runners could advance to the race in Copenhagen as part of the world team. The Atlanta Track Club tried to take at least some responsibility and even offered to throw some cash at the problem in case that might help. It sounds like everyone will be compensated appropriately, financially at least.

Fiasco aside, I just can't imagine hiring a coach who would call others who simply disagree idiots and then boast about it on a podcast. When I think of some of the best coaches, past or present, it makes me laugh trying to picture them responding in such an out-of-control, childish, and emotional manner. It is not a good look. And shame on him. There's no need to be a dick. His reaction makes me wonder what's going on with all the misdirected hostility and intense chatter.

Another Greedy Celebrity Promotes Diet Drugs

2026-02-22T18:35:00.000-08:00

Former professional tennis player Serena Williams was recently criticized quite harshly on social media for promoting the weight-loss drug Ozempic (I assume Ozempic because it was implied she was injecting herself in the ad) or Rybelsusin, the oral medication, in a commercial that played during the Super Bowl. Good. The strong reaction was appropriate. It's nice to see at least some people are against promoting hardcore weight-loss drugs with very limited long-term testing to the general public. Not long ago, I jotted down some observations in a blog post about Oprah doing the same thing. Neither celebrity is out to help others with these kinds of promotions. They're in it for themselves.

Not surprisingly, over 10 percent of Americans are currently on some kind of weight-loss drug. About 40 percent of Americans are currently classified as obese, but there's no way to tell exactly who is taking the drugs. Cost, even with insurance, is a deterrent unless you have money, money, money, so anyone purchasing them has to have anywhere from $400 to well over $1,000 a month extra on hand. Boulder, Colorado, has somehow become an anorexic and bulimic mecca in the middle of the obesity epidemic. But while there might be benefits for certain individuals to use these types of drugs, taking them is never without risk.

To clarify, the distinction I'm making is addressing the use of these drugs for weight loss, not for controlling diabetes. I could possibly see the potential use for a diet drug if a person is obese, possibly too large to exercise comfortably, and takes the drug temporarily while working on lifestyle changes. However, that's typically not how the drugs are promoted, sold, or taken. A relative of mine was prescribed something similar to Ozempic when she complained to her doctor that she had gained 15 pounds. She has always been petite, but she was able to obtain a prescription anyway, despite the potential dangers and side effects of these types of medications.

The fine print on any Ozempic advertisement states that common side effects include nausea, vomiting, stomach pains, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, and dehydration that can lead to kidney problems. Other side effects include heartburn and acid reflux, fatigue and headaches, dizziness, altered taste sensation, pancreatitis, gallbladder issues, hypoglycemia, vision changes, and possible thyroid cancer. Keep in mind that these are the listed side effects. Reported issues that are not listed include gastroparesis, gallbladder issues, intestinal blockage, physical changes, pain in the extremities, blood clots, dry mouth and dental issues, arthritis, vision changes, and increased risk of cardiovascular issues. Holy crap. And I bet that's nowhere near a complete list.

If you think big companies or the FDA give a single shit about the health of the average citizen, look into the corrupt history of the FDA or the history of how powerful and corrupt big companies and the government can be when it comes to shoving products and lies down the throats of the hoi polloi.

Some people argue that using a weight-loss drug is cheating or taking the easy route instead of changing habits, but my issue with these types of drugs is the fact that they are always created more for profiting the rich than for people's health.

One could argue that fast food commercials are as bad as drug commercials. Maybe this is true, but fast food isn't being promoted as nutrition to be ingested daily. Commercials are showing their product without any suggestion of health, only that it supposedly tastes good. In moderation, there's nothing wrong with fast food. Diet drug commercials, on the other hand, are promoting a product that has to be used daily in order to achieve the desired results, and, based on the advertisement presented at the Super Bowl, the subtle message appears to be more about looking thinner than feeling well, even though Serena mentions moving and feeling better...while flaunting her body.

Oh, and did I mention that Serena's husband is on the board of Ro, the tele"health" platform that makes it easier for anyone to gain access to and use these drugs? Um...yeah. I'll leave it at that.

In other news, the boxer Imane Khelif was outed as having the SRY gene, confirming what rational people had seen with their own eyes but were told wasn't true. Strangely, he said he would take a test to compete in the 2008 Olympics, so I'm not sure if he means in the men's division or if he still thinks it's OK for men to punch women in the face in the name of sport. As expected, those who were adamant that Khelif was a woman and demanded apologies from anyone calling him a man are oddly silent or still calling people who tell the truth bigots.

In still other news, Nikki Hiltz, who claims to be non-binary, won the women's division of the Wanamaker Mile. This is another way of saying a woman won a woman's race. The insistence that everyone call her "they" is just ridiculous. She's a female competing in the female division.

I'm not saying these things to be mean. It's just frustrating that we are living in an age where we are told to pretend we don't see what we know to be true, and that telling the truth gets us labeled as haters or transphobic.

Lastly, the Roache husband and wife team, Megan and David, continue to humiliate themselves for likes and attention in their latest YouTube video. It's hard to even watch, and it's impossible to do so without cringing. I mention this because I stumbled upon a critique of the video that was spot on and a pleasure to read. I commented on the blog post and will say here, too, that more and more, people like David and Megan are looking like characters in a Black Mirror episode, specifically the Common People episode, only the Roaches seem to enjoy debasing themselves.

OK. That last part might be a little mean, but Jesus fucking Christ. The world is all kinds of upside down and backwards lately.

I Have Permission

2025-09-29T07:36:00.000-07:00

In various circles, the debate on biological men no longer being able to compete in women’s sport thanks to the World Athletics ruling on testing for the SRY gene has sparked ire from at least some men and, surprisingly, women, mostly those who would rather see inclusion over fairness, even if it means the eventual erosion of women’s sport. Many online posts criticizing the measure don’t actually address the issue itself, at least how it relates to women. Instead, those who have contrary opinions take a page from Nikki Hilts’ How to Debate book and use made-up or skewed facts and loads of whataboutism as a basis for their argument.

The other day on X (Twitter), a lady grabbed Nikki's example and ran with it when she wrote the following: “if you’re a person tweeting about this today under the guise of 'protecting women' and you’ve never said a word about eating disorders, abusive coaches, or predatory sponsor contracts (Nike), I just don’t believe that you care about women’s sports”

This was in response to the following tweet: “Story from here in Tokyo. Sex tests brought in after data showed 50-60 DSD athletes in global and regional finals between 2000 and 2023, World Athletics says. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/sep/19/sex-tests-brought-in-after-data-showed-50-60-dsd-athletes-in-finals-world-athletics-says “

I'm not sure about the responder’s stance on the topic —I can guess, but there’s a slim chance I could be wrong— but I’m in the unique position of having written about all of the topics she mentions, and also having addressed biological men in women's sport. That means, according to her logic, that I care about women’s sports (I do), but, again, according to her, a lot of others who speak up do not. I don't think she counted on any individuals having addressed both issues, though.

But what if we apply that same logic the other way? Can I then call anyone out and claim she doesn't give a shit about female athletes because she dismissed one issue relating to women's competition?

Obviously, this kind of black-and-white thinking won't lead to civil debate or any kind of resolution. I doubt the poster meant it to. If you hold up a "Save The Seals" sign and someone starts yapping about the hippopotami and the dhole, the conversation is hijacked, and the focus moves away from saving any animals at all. Those who engage in distraction are not usually the types who want any actual discourse. It's virtue signaling more than an attempt to contribute to the conversation.

My intention isn't to be an asshole here, however, if you truly care about women's sports, you should also care about a fair and safe playing field for them. That's very basic. Yes, abusive coaches, equal pay, childcare needs, and a long list of other issues are also important, but if women are competing at a disadvantage, they can not succeed as athletes. They will be unable to make a decent living competing against those who have a physical advantage. And, in the cases of Rugby and other contact sports, they are at a greater risk for injury when the danger is already high.

Men and women sustain different types of injuries, and while men tend to get injured more severely playing rugby, which is why you wouldn't really want to invite that into women's sports, women are more susceptible to concussions and other types of injuries when they are hit or hit the ground. This is usually because women have less isometric neck strength than men.

Since this poster attempted to move the conversation away from the article, I’ll return to it by stating that the author points out that between the years 2000 and 2023, 50-60 athletes competed in the female category in global and continental championships despite having gone through male puberty.

This is a long-winded way of saying around 50-60 male athletes cheated by racing against women, and some of them were participating in multiple events. That’s also not including many lesser events with prize money around the world, and it's likely that number is actually higher. I think it's important to acknowledge the ways women lose out when they are forced to compete against biological men if you do, in fact, care about women’s sports.

Moving away from sports and addressing everyday issues, I’ve mentioned before that I never want to offend anyone, but I find using incorrect pronouns difficult. The world is hard enough as it is, so I don't want to contribute to anyone feeling bad. I've certainly called some trans women "she" in real life so that I avoid hurting feelings. I'm less likely to do so now, but it all depends on the circumstances. In some instances, I'm not actually sure what's right. In others, it's obvious what's not right.

In all cases, though, men and boys will never become women or girls no matter what surgeries they have, clothes they wear, or feelings they feel. Still, it's easier to have empathy for anyone struggling with gender dysphoria than it is for a criminal who is LARPing as a woman and committing men’s sexual crimes and worse.

I often wonder how it would be if I insisted people refer to me as "fatty" because I identify as a heavier person and feel like one most of the time. Ultimately, no matter how I feel about myself, I would never force anyone to play along with or contribute to my distorted reality of my body.

It’s always a relief when I meet someone like the gentleman I know from work who cross-dresses but still uses his given name and associated pronouns. I love that he embraces who he is and doesn't make everyone around him feel uncomfortable about how to address him. He's just who he is, and that's about as cool as it gets.

The use of "they" pronouns is even more confounding, and I really struggle with it. I met someone who claimed she "almost went by the pronoun they but decided against it," thus suggesting it's not necessarily about anything concrete, just something in vogue, a way to feel special. It seems even those who call themselves by a plural pronoun have trouble explaining non-binary. Non-binary is a fairly recent term that developed, similar to gender, as a social construct, yet those who claim they are often end up demanding special rights. It's fine to encourage broad expressions of identity, but not at the expense of reality or others.

I don't have any real solutions except to keep digging into the topic and listening to others. Mostly, I will continue speaking up about women's rights because, as a former athlete and as a woman, these issues matter to me. Being kind to one group doesn't have to include the erosion of someone else's rights.

On a separate note, my last short post on Malcolm Gladwell has drawn a lot of attention. I'm never sure why one post generates interest while another one falls flat, but thank you to anyone willing to read my blog posts. If you're looking for something more uplifting, I also review cheese on my blog, Say Cheese! I have some fun reviews in mind coming up for that one. And, though I'm terrible at asking for anything, especially money, my Venmo is @lizefb if you’re feeling generous and would like to help keep me writing. Or, consider a donation to my charity, Romo's Rescue Fund. We assist pet owners and other charities with veterinary costs and provisions. To date, we have put in over $10,000 and have helped save a lot of furry friends. We have also assisted with end-of-life care when the time comes. Just today, we covered the veterinary bill for someone in need, so we are grateful for any support at all

Malcolm Gladwell's Sad Apology

2025-09-07T18:33:00.000-07:00

This isn't a full blog post; it's more a response to the recent The Science of Sport podcast episode, hosted by Ross Tucker and Mike Finch, featuring Malcolm Gladwell. I can't top Sarah Barker's take or J.K. Rowling's response on Twitter (X), but below are some thoughts I've had. I really hope people take the time to click on the two previous links and absorb what Rowling and Barker are saying.

Immediately after Gladwell, with all the panache of Alvy Singer, confessed that he was cowed --as others pointed out, he should have said "I was a coward" instead -- into supporting trans athletes in women's sport, Tucker went on social media in an effort to defend Gladwell and call him an ally. Tucker is usually a most reasonable, level-headed, fair, and considerate individual, and he wanted people to move beyond Gladwell's comment and listen to the rest of the interview. He felt, controversy aside, Gladwell made some interesting points during their conversation. I can't say I agree that Gladwell's ideas about scoring for cross country are among them, but Tucker seemed to think this and other topics of discussion were worth a listen.

It's probably hard for men or those who favor inclusion over fairness to understand how angry some of us are for being abandoned, criticized, called bigots and other names, and penalized for standing up for women. Again, Sarah Barker and J.K. Rowling summed everything up very concisely, so I won't beat a dead horse too much more. I agree with Sarah, though, that when Tucker compared his evolution on the topic to Gladwell's, he was wrong.

The major difference is that while Tucker has always voiced his opinion based on his knowledge at the time (as many of us have), Gladwell knowingly lied and omitted the truth. And he is considered a journalist, a prominent cultural thinker and such. Tucker changed his stance after conducting further research and after more information became available. Gladwell admitted that he knew there was a male advantage at the time he was supporting the idea of inclusion in the female category.

Several people have brought up other ways in which Gladwell either outright lied or distorted the truth. Those of you familiar with the Munk Debates may remember back in 2022 when Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg attempted to debate Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray on the topic of trusting the mainstream media. Perhaps if Gladwell hadn't been so busy trying to come up with cringy zingers to hurl at his opposition, he could have focused on the debate itself; however, not only did he fail miserably to sway the audience, he lied and got called out on previous lies as well. He has admitted bias regarding his book The Tipping Point and wrote inaccurately about Northern Ireland in his book David and Goliath. The guy is just not trustworthy.

Taibbi addressed what happened during the Munk Debate in a Substack post and on X (Twitter). Gladwell is really good at twisting the facts, yet, at the time, he wanted to assure everyone that it's OK to trust the media. It's good to trust the media. You can trust the media. During the debate, Gladwell suggested Taibbi was longing for the days of Jim Crow because Taibbi made reference to a respected reporter, Walter Cronkite. It was so off base that I was actually surprised Gladwell had the balls to lie so blatantly in public. Why he didn't immediately apologize is beyond me, but Gladwell only seems interested in apologizing if it serves him in some way.

Since the tide is turning and public opinion overwhelmingly supports the extreme notion that women actually just might deserve sex-based rights, Gladwell is suddenly "brave" enough to come forward and admit he was a wanker. But as a cherry on top for those of us who see who Gladwell is, think what you will about Douglas Murray, his response to Gladwell's continual disrespect during the debate was fucking brilliant.

In The Science of Sport podcast, Gladwell also suggested that he's an authoritarian when it comes to dopers in sport, but then went on to suggest that we should welcome those who have served bans back into the sport with open arms. This is pretty much the opposite of being an authoritarian. I've stated plenty of times that I'm for lifetime bans. I realize, and Tucker also pointed out on social media, that lifetime bans wouldn't be feasible because of legal factors, but there needs to be some sort of zero-tolerance policy put into place, not just for the athletes but for everyone involved.

The whole system is so completely fucked right now that it's almost pointless to debate the topic. More money put toward testing, better testing methods, fewer corrupt officials and athletes, and stricter punishments could possibly improve the situation slightly. I'm afraid professional and even amateur sport is so dirty that it's beyond repair.

The way testing works now is that, as ridiculous as an excuse might be (burrito contamination), we are forced to accept the possibility that the explanation for why the athlete tested positive could be accurate and not assume the person knowingly used performance enhancers.

It would be like watching someone in a wig and big sunglasses carrying a large bag around a store looking suspicious, and then getting stopped by employees right outside of the store. When a search of her bag reveals unpaid items from the shelves inside, we must assume that they could have accidentally fallen into her zipped-up sack. Or maybe someone else put them there!

While most everyone knows the items are stolen, several people will actually believe they're not and defend the thief. Other people will know they're stolen and still defend the thief. Very few will both know the truth and actually condemn the thief, and even those who do will be forced to admit that there's a possibility, no matter how small, that she could, in theory anyway, be innocent. Because that's the way the law works. In rare cases, lifetime bans have been handed out for certain classes of drugs after a certain number of violations have been reached in certain sports, or for gambling or other violations.

I'm not saying we should take anyone's right to due process away, but the way things are being run now is a farce. Technology will never catch up to new methods of doping, and money will always be too much of a factor. Organizations don't want to bust big names that draw spectators, and improved testing costs too much money. Athletes want to win, so there's also their incentive to consider. And all of this isn't even touching on the more subtle ways of cheating, like using thyroid medication or other substances that can potentially improve performance but are not on any lists of banned drugs.

On that bright and cheery note, I say adieu until the next time. Excuse any errors. I rushed through this and might need to go back and do some editing later..or not.

Nikki Hiltz Is Only Fast On The Track

2025-08-30T19:08:00.000-07:00

**Trigger warning for mentioning suicide**

In my last post, I said that Nikki Hiltz, an American 1500-meter runner, is a mean girl. This is because she publicly belittled a woman for having the temerity to speak up about fairness for women in the Boston marathon, an event Hiltz doesn’t run. I’m not saying a middle-distance runner shouldn’t comment on longer events, but the way she went about it was cruel. She really comes off as arrogant in her approach.

Though Hiltz demands others use they/them pronouns when referring to her, I won’t because she is biologically female and races in the women’s division. Cutting off her breasts or other body parts doesn't change her sex, so she is allowed to continue racing in the women’s division. And I’m allowed to call her “she” regardless.

After she claimed she was a transgender individual and then changed that to nonbinary, probably to avoid addressing any backlash for not wanting to compete in the men's division if she felt so strongly about being a man, it's hard to believe much of what she says, though she could just be confused and suffering from body dysmorphia or gender dysphoria. At one point, she claimed she was both, which isn’t possible unless you live in make-believe land.

In addition to being a standout on the track in middle-distance events, Hiltz is outspoken about transgender and non-binary rights. In other words, she promotes biological men racing against women, even though she has the luxury of competing and profiting by running in a protected category for her event. She’s OK if other women don’t have that right, is how that translates.

Regarding biological men in the women’s division, Hiltz claims that nonbinary and trans athletes aren’t winning and seems to suggest they’re not even competing at the elite level at all, but, contrary to her claims, it does happen, more than she thinks it does. Here’s an ongoing list of events that, according to Hiltz, don't happen: The Lists - search by category. Apparently, she forgot about what happened in the Olympics in Rio in 2016, too. There, three biological men took top honors in the 800. These three are DSD athletes, but what follows and her comments address that as well.

None of this affects her directly, though, so her attitude is one of not giving a shit. The only thing she seems to care about is spewing rhetoric. But why doesn't she care about younger athletes? As a top athlete, shouldn't she be concerned about the future of women's sport and providing girls and young women with the opportunity to compete on a level playing field? I sure want that. I hope young girls and women get a chance to feel what it’s like to break the tape and confidently toe the line knowing they stand a chance to win.

In a recent interview, if you want to call it that, Hiltz complains about the new policy World Athletics has put in place to protect the female category. This policy includes a one-time cheek swab or blood test to detect the SRY gene for anyone competing in the women's field. It is an extremely accurate, non- invasive test and is correct in determining testes 99.99 percent of the time. An anomaly would require further investigation and a conference with the athlete and his or her trainers. The point is to prevent what happened at the Olympics in Rio in the 800 from happening again. This policy is designed to protect women and the women's category in sports.

In the interview, Hiltz admits that she doesn't have a clue what she’s talking about, and it’s unlikely she has any interest in learning more about DSD conditions or genetics, or the actual test put in place by World Athletics for that matter. I will add more information on this at the end of the post for anyone who is interested.

Hiltz basically babbles the equivalent of, "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS TEST IS FOR, BUT HERE'S MY OPINION ANYWAY!" Imagine not knowing what the test is, yet acting all high and mighty, and then speculating about what it means for the test to be in place. It's utterly absurd. Her arrogance is truly stunning here.

What’s most shocking is how freely and loudly she spews complete horseshit. The lies just roll off her tongue, and it’s clear she doesn’t give a crap about facts or about others. She comes off as someone who only wants to hear herself talk. She just loves that spotlight.

In what might be considered the dumbest response of all time, Nikki Hiltz claims that the World Athletics policy is a "slippery slope." She falsely claims that, even though this test is harmless, it could set a precedent and lead other organizations to conduct more invasive testing, only it doesn't and wouldn't.

These spooky organizations Hiltz created in her own head wouldn't be able to successfully use invasive methods to test sex if World Athletics won't recognize these make-believe investigations as valid. There is zero evidence that any kind of invasive testing would happen. If it did, it wouldn't be because of the policy. But Hiltz has an agenda. Truth doesn't really matter as long as she gets her message out, that non-binary and trans athletes' rights trump everyone else's.

As one reader already pointed out, Hiltz established herself as a liar when she posted incorrect information about a non-binary teen, claiming this person was murdered when the cause of death was actually suicide. She never addressed the issue again, even after major publications and the media as a whole clarified what had happened, that the death was self-inflicted. In this particular tragedy, the young teen threw water at a group of individuals, and then there was an altercation that did not result in the teen's death. Sadly, the teen later committed suicide. If Hiltz meant that possible bullying may have contributed to a suicide, that's not what she said. Hiltz outright claimed the teen was murdered. Words matter. Accuracy matters. Hiltz does not care.

Continuing with the interview, Hiltz grabs all kinds of fake statistics out of her own ass. She claims that two percent of the population is intersex and that it's as common as red hair. It's not. The correct statistics state it's closer to .018 percent and not nearly as common as having red hair. Again, she shows her ignorance, yet is so unbelievably confident in her fabrications.

In another jaw-dropping moment of stupidity, she then claims that some people may have been "growing a Y chromosome" at some point, and then it POOF just goes away, disappears, just like that. This is so ridiculous it's hard to know how to address the claim, but no, chromosomes don't suddenly disappear like that. Sex is fixed before the birth of the baby.

Perhaps realizing that she's flailing around in unfamiliar territory, Hiltz then uses whataboutism after stumbling through her clownish explanation of genetics and claims that abusive coaches and doping (lol) are more important to consider than women having their category erased. The whole thing is cringy to watch. I almost feel bad for her for being so naive (or is she cunning?), but, sadly, there are fans of hers who will stand behind her, no matter how ridiculous her claims.

It's unfortunate that so many podcasters, journalists, and fellow athletes support her, even when she is lying or intentionally being unkind. I think with this latest video interview, though, at least more people will realize she shouldn't be taken seriously.

For those interested, below are some links that are helpful when discussing the topic of biological men in women's sports:

Male advantage in sports

DSD conditions and sex

World Athletics policy and testing

SRY gene

Swyer Syndrome

Imane Khelif boxing kerfuffle

Nonbinary and gender dysphoria

Burn It All Down

2025-08-23T18:39:00.000-07:00

The other day, a friend of mine sent me a link to Allie Ostrander's latest YouTube video. Whenever I look at anything she does, it's always in the back of my mind that she's a cheat. I don't understand her fans and their enthusiasm for her "content", but she has quite a few diehard groupies constantly cheering her on in whatever she does, be it racing or reveling in sorrow. Unless someone points out something she has done or said, I tend to ignore her.

It's not that she doesn't occasionally bring up something worthwhile; it's that she doesn't appear to give a shit about her audience. And she’s a cheater and a liar. I don’t respect her, and that won't change, unless she suddenly starts telling the truth and apologizes for taking shortcuts and for knowingly producing triggering videos after claiming she is raising awareness about eating disorders.

As I was watching her complain about her training and not feeling right, a common theme in her posts, I wondered what direction her video might take. The title was something about reaching a breaking point, and she hinted at knowing she was possibly overtraining. Where has her coach been in this?

This isn't the first time she has discussed these low moments throughout her career, and I don't usually find talk about overdoing it and continuing to do so, digging an already deep hole deeper, helpful. However, when she moved toward possible solutions after having fallen into the trench, I thought maybe she had something of value to offer her viewers after all.

Admitting she needed to take a step back, either for emotional reasons or physical or both, seemed not just sensible for herself but a great suggestion for anyone who's feeling off in training. It's not new or earth-shattering information, but it beats some of the "LOOKIT WHAT I EAT" type videos she makes. Then all of a sudden, I could have sworn I dropped into the first episode in season seven of Black Mirror. I actually had a WTF moment when Allie, with a straight face, went from talking about athletes needing enough rest straight into a full-blown advertisement for a mattress.

It's one of the most bizarre things I have ever witnessed on a runner's channel. What a turn-off and how strange, but this is the world we live in now, like it or not. Having promos as part of (not separate from) a serious conversation is jarring, and that's the nicest thing I can think of to say about her plug or her channel.

On so many levels, Allie is a huge disappointment. I question why she decided to work with David Roche and have suspicions about him and several individuals associated with the whole Some Work, All Play cult, too. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Because I suspect these types of people are not as kind and easy-go-lucky as they pretend to be, I'll make it clear that I'm expressing an opinion, speculating, wondering aloud, not accusing, exactly. Wink wink. I have questions, though, and I scratch my head a lot when thinking about these types.

People say sprinting is the dirtiest sport in running, but ultras are as close to unregulated as possible while still implementing some testing -- only in the big races, though. Most races that actually bother to have testing of any kind, the Leadville 100 and Western States included, mention on their websites that they might implement testing at the race site. In other words, do your doping with enough time before and after so that you don't get caught. And with microdosing and new methods of cheating, it's harder to catch scammers anyway.

A weird study regarding ultrarunners and doping was conducted in 2024. Basically, pee samples were collected from urinals at ultra races and tested for drugs. This doesn't really prove anything because, again, runners are warned about possible testing at the race sites of the more well-known races; however, in what amounts to the equivalent of a blind sample, tests showed the following:

Among 412 individual urine samples, 205 (49.8%) contained at least one substance, and 16.3% of the samples contained one or more prohibited substances. Substances detected in urine included nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) (22.1%), acetaminophen (15.5%), opioids (6.6%), diuretics (4.9%), hypnotics (4.4%), glucocorticoids (2.7%), beta-2 agonists (2.2%), cannabinoids (1.9%), and stimulants (1.2%). None of the samples contained erythropoietin-receptor agonists or suspicious testosterone. Drug use was not associated with the participants’ characteristics or ranking. Respondents to the questionnaire reported using acetaminophen (13.6%) and NSAID (12.9%); however, no prohibited substances were declared.

The study draws some interesting conclusions based on this result. While only 16.3 percent of the samples contained something fishy, something other than non-performance-inhancing substances, diuretics should be a red flag since that's often a mark of a masking agent. Additionally, if someone is using opioids, and, according to these findings, over 6 percent are, isn't that a concern?

But none of these results really point to much because of the way and where the samples were collected. It's like a Baltimore cop announcing that she's going to be patrolling for illegal street gambling at 9 p.m. on Friday, September 25th, and then being surprised she didn't catch anyone throwing dice on a street corner. And yet, in 2024, a few random cheaters in the ultra-running community didn't get the message.

I can speculate all I want, but it would be great to see better regulation, better testing, and life-long bans for those caught, even if what's uncovered is a masking agent commonly found in acne medication. Nobody believes a pro athlete wouldn't get a TUE for any medication containing a diuretic or a metabolite of a diuretic when WADA is extremely clear on these and other drugs that are prohibited at all times. Well, people who like to play make-believe might fall for some bullshit about not getting an exception because ---insert ridiculous explanation here, but most rational people are aware of who's lying. And don't trust all the new training fads. Those are red flags, too.

If you have read the last few posts I've made, it's probably obvious that Allie rubs me the wrong way. It's not just that she's a cheater and not just that she lied; it's her whole narcissistic approach to social media. I really tried to have sympathy for her when she cried on a video about her unspecified eating disorder and made the decision to get treatment. I truly wanted her to get well and still do. Whatever demons are in her head, nobody deserves that.

Having been at some incredibly low points with my own illness, I feel for anyone deep in the muck and the mire, however, I think a content creator who responds to an individual asking if her videos might be triggering by insisting something along the lines of, "It's my journey!" maybe shouldn't be an advocate for recovery. It's OK to simply post content without trying to be an advocate or without claiming it's about raising awareness when there are better ways to do so. Her channel is not about helping. She's making a living, selling shit and racing. That's all.

I'm sure there are super fans of hers who will claim Allie is heroic and offers inspiration, but that's not what I see. Again, how do you take a person's "honesty" and "openness" at face value when you know she's a liar? I'd like to know how far back the cheating goes. Admit it and talk about that, and then I might have some respect.

On a side note, but speaking of courageousness, I've mentioned that I work in a vet clinic, and the other day an older woman called about her dog that was attacked by a mountain lion. She told me that she kicked the mountain lion after she came into her yard and saw the wild cat with the dog in its mouth. I said, "You did what?" and she repeated, " I kicked it. It was facing away from me, so I kicked it." And she rescued the dog. Now, that is heroic and badass! The dog is fine, and the mountain lion ran away. She's fine, too. But I digress …

Someone who's far more intellectual and thoughtful in her approach on social media is Amelia Boone. Despite her ties to David and Megan Roche, she seems at least a little more trustworthy and real. Though she admits she worries about what others think when she addresses sensitive topics, she's far more helpful in offering solutions and admitting she, like most of us, doesn't have it all figured out.

My biggest criticism of her blog is that, like many others who write about recovery, the focus is on eating in order to run, not recovery itself, even though the two are not entirely separate. I understand how big or even little victories around eating more in order to train and race harder are stepping stones, but recovery is about so much more than that.

Runners tend to focus on outcome, finishing a race, training, or finding success in a specific workout, but eating disorders take away from overall health, not just running-related achievements.

So often, advocates neglect simply living and focus entirely on the athletic aspect. Oh, but look at me, all judgmental and critical of others when I don't have my own shit together. Far from it. And I feel bad that people like Amelia and Ellie Pell are so often injured. As am I, as am I. Ellie has at least moved away from her godawful, potentially damaging and triggering “What I eat in a day” videos, so that shows some growth.

I also understand Amelia’s concern when she says even cautious writing can anger some readers, but at least she's not intentionally belittling her audience like Lauren Fleshman, Nikki Hiltz, and others in the running community often do. God, Hiltz is a mean girl.

I appreciate Amelia's willingness to be honest, and her content is far more useful, even if it is self-absorbed. Any blogger, myself included, has at least a little bit of a narcissistic streak, some more than others. I won't even mention influencers because they're in another stratosphere when it comes to being egotistical. I think it's the nature of the beast for those of us with eating disorders to become navel gazers. I often have to force myself out of my self-preoccupation. That's not to deny how often those with eating disorders are too selfless, a strange contradiction.

As much as I complain, audience members can usually find tidbits of good information in most of the blogs and videos I mentioned. I worry that the triggering, unnecessary, and sometimes even harmful content outweighs the informative material, though.

Tabitha Farrar is one of the few recovery advocates I admire. It helps that she shows herself living more freely and fully, but she's also not afraid to say what she feels or believes about recovery. I think Rachael Steil does a good job promoting recovery as well. I used to admire several advocates who associate themselves with the body-positive movement. That was until it became more of an angry, anti-thin, pro-fat group instead of a coterie of individuals who support all bodies.

But, really, who am I to tell others whom they should admire or follow? I mean, if following a liar and cheater or someone who shits on others brings you happiness, go ahead and indulge yourself. I'm not going to stop you.

A Short List of Ideas That Never Went Anywhere

2025-08-02T21:16:00.000-07:00

Throughout the years, I've had ideas that never went anywhere. I attempted a few product designs here and there, the most successful being a vegan truffle recipe I created well before veganism was much of a thing. At the time, the cost of making them wouldn't have yielded a profit. In fact, because I would have had to rent a commercial kitchen, I likely would have lost money in the process, despite several local health food stores expressing interest. I thought the cool chocolate bars I made combining either dark and milk or dark and white chocolate with various toppings had potential. Sadly, I didn't take either idea far enough. Again, money was an issue.

Not that it means anything now, but here is a list of ideas I had that never amounted to anything, except to demonstrate that I sometimes have good ideas, ones I can't seem to get off the ground. And then I have to witness somebody else's success with the same or similar ideas.

The list:

When I was in college and after, I was tired a lot. One day, a friend and I were talking about the difficulties of being tired in public. I mentioned that someone should come up with a Rent-A-Cot. Several years later, I stumbled upon this: https://www.businessinsider.com/japanese-pod-hotel-rent-rooms-9-hours-2017-8

My friend came up with the idea for Rue Paul's Drag Race while we were joking about how the trend of reality television opened the doors to air pretty much anything, boring, raunchy, or not. Little did we know his joke would become a reality TV show.

Chelsea Handler stole the format I was using for my own podcast and used it for her show, Chelsea Lately. This proves that my idea of including a segment of bizarre but true news stories everyone could comment on was ahead of its time, not that she listened to my show.

While working in an art gallery, I came up with the idea for what basically became Artsy and even reached out to a few website designers about it. Sadly, nobody was interested in helping me put something together.

A long, long time ago, I came up with a design for a pasta cooker similar to the one in this link but with one container solid for the sauce and the other slotted instead of just the one slotted container: https://www.wayfair.com/kitchen-tabletop/pdp/henckels-85-qt-stainless-steel-pasta-pot-with-lid-and-strainers-icql1201.html

A few years ago, I mentioned to a friend of mine how beneficial it would be for women or anyone being abused to have access to a safety button. I thought it could even be hidden in everyday items. My idea never went anywhere. This is a similar idea: https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/ROA-Times/issues/1995/rt9506/950601/06010070.htm

Since I have struggled with dyslexia from the time I can remember, I had an idea very similar to this reader: https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Highlight-Colored-Bookmarks-Childrens/dp/B07QNV8D7T/ref=asc_df_B07QNV8D7T/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=344004268544&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6237448330705343635&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9028821&hvtargid=pla-810832828037&psc=1&mcid=b10f4cdd8ca339428c8472b2a5c1b7c8&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=66044533621&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=344004268544&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6237448330705343635&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9028821&hvtargid=pla-810832828037

Although this isn't very exciting, I suppose it should encourage me to continue dreaming. I wonder if the story I keep saying I'm writing (but rarely work on) will show up in print before I actually write it, too. Sign.

The Latest Doping Scandal

2025-07-21T22:19:00.000-07:00

By now, people have had time to react to Ruth Chepngetich's suspension for doping. The world record holder and Chicago Marathon winner was caught using a masking agent, which, although not as satisfying for the “I told you so!” crowd or as telling as agents uncovering the actual enhancing drug, still establishes her as a cheater.

This is the same way Allie Ostrander was busted, and anyone who believes Allie simply didn't ask for a TUE for her acne medication because she knew, after admitting to Googling the substance beforehand, that the masking agent itself doesn't enhance performance, is purposefully ignoring the obvious. Had she told the truth, she would have either admitted that Google specifically lists canrenone as a banned substance and she doesn’t give a shit about integrity or rules, or she made a mistake and used a masking agent because she is, indeed, doping. Which do you honestly believe? Also, any coach willing to take on a doper and liar is suspect as well. But I digress. My feeling is that it's impossible to trust anyone after they have been caught, but I'd like to know how far back the cheating goes.

When discussing these issues with a friend the other day, I started to wonder how it is with athletes who supposedly don't know their coach is doping them, either by giving them vitamins that aren't really or by using special creams for massages. In 2022, there was a bizarre doping case involving a Russian ice skater and supposedly some heart medication. First, she blamed her grandfather for accidentally contaminating her dessert, and then, when this excuse fell flat, she was punished, despite the hand her crew played in supplying banned substances and coaxing her into cheating. She was very young, but it seems the athletes, more than anyone else, will continually be the ones to take the fall. Fall they absolutely should, but not alone. Perhaps if more people involved were held accountable, there wouldn’t be as much of a problem. But the desire to win at all costs is incredibly strong, so maybe not.

When you examine Chepngetich's progression, it's blatantly obvious that her leaps and bounds into world record territory have been questionable. Her marathon history is something else, really something extraordinary, even considering the drugs. Someone forgot to rein her in to make the world record look at least plausible. She went from a 2:22 debut to 2:14, ran a 2:15, and then jumped all the way to 2:09, shaving several minutes off the previous record. It's absurd, but then you look at her marathon itself and realize how much more insane is it. To PR in shorter segments in a marathon or longer race isn't unheard of, but when you're smashing a 10k and half-marathon time by such huge margins, it becomes almost funny to think people even remotely believe this shit, that she just might be clean.

Even if you forget her ties to Federico Rosa for a moment and look at her running, there's no way you can believe she's not on something, no way, at least if you have a working brain. My neuronal firing doesn't work all that well at times, and even I can see how obvious it is that Chepngetich is dirty. Who couldn't? More importantly, why would anyone pretend otherwise?

But there were people who, for whatever warped reason, gave her the benefit of the doubt, similar to die-hard Lance Armstrong fans. The benefit of the doubt isn't necessarily bad in general terms, of course, but when all evidence points to a certain conclusion, why should anyone be chastised for expressing suspicion?

Alison Wade, notorious for her "do as I say, not as I do" attitude, especially when it comes to the coverage of young athletes (don't draw attention to them unless you write for Fast Women) and a strong advocate for biological men in women's sport, implied that everyone should avoid speculating and assumptions about a runner unless authorities catch her. Um, no. Look at the overwhelming evidence and get back to me.

Not only did Wade avoid calling a runner out based on her connections and extremely questionable progression, she felt quite OK speculating that Chepngetich could have run even faster...still possibly clean! In her latest post on the topic, though, readers could almost feel how badly she must have wanted to add a disclaimer about diuretics. Hopefully, Wade is aware of the quantity (190 times higher than what would be expected in any kind of contamination case) found in Chepngetich's sample and how silly any wavering at this point would look.

But now she’s claiming she believed the marathoner was most likely dirty all along. Wait, what?

Is this someone too afraid to rock the boat, even with extremely strong evidence, or someone who actually thought for a moment that Chepngetich could be avoiding the sauce and still running those times and showcasing that progression? Either way, it's a bad look for any kind of journalism or coverage of the sport, to waver and then retroactively claim, "Oh, I knew it all along," and an equally bad look to not know what times are ridiculous versus those that could be a legitimate possibility. It's bad enough that the world record will stand because officials *have* to assume Chepngetich ran the record-setting pace clean. We don't need anyone even remotely suggesting the effort was actually clean. My guess is Wade will eventually go hard on the coaches and other handlers and excuse the athlete. They're all dirty, though, all of them.

More and more, the media are insisting their audience not trust their own eyes or their gut feelings. Whether it's insisting trans women are actual women or they don't have a physical advantage in sport (they do), or pretending there isn't a massive doping problem in all sports at all levels, we are asked to go along with a lie, to accept the absurd as fact. Only recently has there been some backlash, but it often feels like we're living in some bizarre version of Oceania.

As we move into an era of more sophisticated doping strategies and more types of drugs and masking agents available, it will be less likely that catching dopers will continue, not that many have been caught. It definitely won't get any better. Ultra running is an even bigger joke. As I mentioned before, race directors give athletes a time and date for possible testing, and there are no real consequences if an athlete is caught. Maybe he or she won't be invited back to the race, maybe not. The incentive to win money, or in some cases, glory, is too high.

I was planning to go more deeply into topics for this post, but I found out very recently that a friend of mine passed away after years of struggling with anorexia. As a result, my brain is a little foggy and my emotions are running high. I'm also in some physical pain from the usual. I may have more to say on that at another time, but for now, rather than push to make this a better effort, I'm going to leave it as is and make a more strategic attempt next time. Since my long lapse from blogging, it's important to get a few posts out there for my own sake. I guess it's a little like practicing the scales in music.

Thank you to the few individuals who reached out or commented. I was very touched that anyone actually read my last post, even more so that anyone took the time and effort to respond. That was very kind.

Excuse My Long Lapse in Writing

2025-07-13T18:48:00.000-07:00

I'd ask for forgiveness for letting so much time pass between blog posts, but I don't think many people read this blog. Instead, my plan will be to write something, anything, in order to break the silence. It's not that I haven't jotted words down or done anything at all in the last year or even longer, but I can't really call stumbling over the keyboard here and there or producing a sentence or two writing. So, yeah, I've let things slide and not just with writing.

The end of July will mark the one-year anniversary of my mom's passing. Anyone who knew her understands what an extraordinary woman she was. I was her caretaker right up until she passed and wish I could have done a better job with everything. I'm sure there are people who do far worse, but I know I could have been a better daughter overall, though she always told people I was amazing and wonderful and all kinds of great. I know in my heart I'm not. She wasn't herself the last year or two, but she was, as always, beautiful and wise, even as she lost some of her mental capacity due to tumors in her brain. I haven't fully processed my feelings over everything, so I'll leave it at that and shove the sadness and grief I feel down for now.

Since then, I've moved to a very small apartment and continue working at a vet clinic in reception. The job is as hard as ever but also rewarding. It's fast-paced and sometimes overwhelming. My favorite time is when everything is caught up, and I can focus on little side projects. My least favorite time is when it's crazy busy, people are calling and in the lobby, and it seems we will never catch up with the duties that need to be completed. Fortunately, my coworkers are all very helpful where they can be, and the environment, while stressful, is a healthy one.

I've worked a couple 10+ hour shifts, and it's a struggle to recover. I'm glad most of the longer shifts I've worked have been on a Friday, leaving the entire weekend to relax, though relaxing isn't my most successful activity, unless I'm sleeping, which I do a lot of. Otherwise, I'm way down deep in the OCD routines, leaving very little time or energy to be social, which is difficult for me anyway because I tend to not like being around people, even those I like.

Yesterday, I was about to go for a jog or wobble around the block -- that's about all I can do lately because of the high hamstring and foot issues -- when I saw a wee little baby bunny that didn't look quite right. When I got up closer, I could see there was a piece of a label, probably from a packaged product, stuck in its fur on its backside. I got very close, but it eventually ran into the bushes. I waited but finally gave up and felt terrible knowing I could have helped this little (so smol!!) guy out but failed. In the afternoon, I was still fretting about it, so I went out again to search for it and found the wee little thing in the grass. This time, I was able to very slowly get right up to it and finally pulled off the label! It might not seem like much, but it felt good knowing I helped make one little creature more comfortable in the world.

I don't have a whole lot more to report. I've been very glad to read Sarah Barker's Substack posts. She's very thorough in addressing trans athletes in women's sports. I've also been glad to see individuals on Let's Run take on David Roche. It's not the first time Let's Run has dedicated many pages to flaying the mock modest coach/athlete. Ross Tucker and Mike Finch also mentioned him and also addressed the NIKE sub-four spectacle in a recent podcast episode that's worth a listen.

I don't follow running a whole lot anymore. The sport is such a joke at this point that it might as well be called the enhanced games. With so many athletes in general admitting they cheat, you can imagine how many more there are who keep quiet about it. And it's at all levels, including high school. Anyone who thinks an athlete who hasn't been caught is clean isn't thinking clearly. This is especially true when it comes to ultras with rules that state exactly when an athlete could possibly be tested. And with the use of masking agents and micro-doping plus easier access to products, it's almost a given that the majority of top athletes are cheating.

Well, sigh. I know this is short and probably not so sweet, but I wanted to post something to say I'm still here, even though there are days I wish I weren't.

To end on a brighter note, I have read some very good books lately. I don't read a ton and haven't been working on my novel, but I have a Goodreads account with the more recent books I've read listed. I would say that "The Patient" was one of the better picks, and I'm surprised I like Karen Slaughter's books. I'm not sure why I thought her writing wouldn't be to my liking. Of course, Stephen King remains one of my all-time favorites, and I'm in the middle of "The Stand" while also tackling Jo Nesbo's "The Snowman". Neither is for the faint of heart.

Wishing everyone well, if anyone ends up reading this.

Oprah Is At It Again And Other Disappointments

2024-03-23T16:39:00.000-07:00

I've seen a lot of talk online lately about normalizing ideas and behaviors, mostly when it comes to mental health. It used to be that people equated normalizing with removing the stigma around a topic, and, in most cases, it’s beneficial to avoid negative stereotypes that tend to come up when this type of approach isn't used. Normalizing when it comes to talking about mental health is generally seen as beneficial. It helps people feel less ashamed and less alone for struggling with any kind of disorder or illness.

Because of the way social media and the media have evolved, normalizing now has both pros and cons but probably more cons than pros. It should be obvious that normalizing violence is not constructive while helping an individual who perceives emotions as negative or bad normalize his or her feelings can be helpful.

The problem these days is that frauds, extremists, and insincere individuals attempt to gaslight others into thinking that certain actions they're engaging in are OK when these actions could be dangerous, deadly even. Trying to rationalize continuing a risky behavior under the guise of normalizing this particular conduct is despicable, yet influencers and actors do it all the time. There's a not-so-fine line between sharing struggles and promoting a soothing yet unsound coping strategy. More and more, individuals are crossing this line in order to rationalize their unhealthy obsessions.

I see this type of conduct a lot in eating disorder communities. Allie Ostrander is a good example of someone crossing the line from sharing to self-indulgence. I have to preface this by admitting I lost any respect for her when she was outed as a liar and cheater. What a disappointment she turned out to be.

For anyone who doesn't know, Allie is a runner who was busted and served a four-month ban for using canrenone. In her failed, "It's my acne medication! I didn't know!" defense, she admitted googling the drug to see if it had an effect on performance. It doesn’t, but sometimes it’s best to shut the fuck up if you want others to believe you. In trying to cover her tracks, Allie accidentally over-explained and outed herself as a liar.

You see, when you google this drug in relation to performance or anything remotely sports-related, the very first thing that pops up is that it's a banned substance. There is no way she didn’t know about canrenone being on the banned list, absolutely no way. There’s a reason why she didn’t elect to get a therapeutic use exemption, and it’s not because this drug doesn’t improve performance. Canrenone is actually used as a masking agent, so god knows what else she was and probably still is taking. There’s no doubt in my mind that she’s a flat-out fraud, and any coach who would take her on as a client at this point is suspect, too.

Cheating in sports aside, Allie is also blasting her audience with questionable content under the facade of promoting eating disorder recovery. In one of her cringe-worthy videos that I won't link to because it truly is upsetting, her boyfriend suggests that the content she’s putting out might be triggering, but Allie doesn't give a fuck about other people. This is about HER. She's part of the ME ME ME ME ME! generation after all.

I have to ask, though, what good does it do others if she mentions the crazy calorie totals she's consuming for a particular video take? Who, exactly, does it help when she shoves what she eats in a day in her viewers' faces, many of whom are struggling with eating disorders of their own, and what good comes of her posting videos of herself training hard while admitting she's not fully recovered from bulimia? The answer is that it benefits her. Her YouTube channel and social media accounts are for profit. She's creating content, and it doesn't matter who might be affected negatively as long as she gets paid.

I'm all for honesty when it comes to recovery, but what Allie is doing isn't honest. This is narcissism on full display. And it helps no one. Anyone claiming the videos and posts she creates benefit others probably thinks other fads and online scams are helpful. There is a big difference, a huge one, between admitting you're struggling and going into the gory details that can traumatize and negatively influence others. If she wants to pretend she's edgy and post garbage like that without offering much, if anything, in terms of actual recovery, she should stop lying about promoting recovery. She’s posting content to continue her sponsorships and to attract rubberneckers and those who will be fans no matter what she does. She's posting for money at her followers' expense is what she's doing.

I’ve written about Oprah Winfrey being a huge disappointment before, and this year, she has proven herself to be even more of a scumbag. Back in 2015 when I created a blog post detailing her shenanigans with Weight Watchers, I didn’t think she would stoop any lower, but her recent actions only prove how obsessed this woman is with being thin. You would think that someone as accomplished and successful as Oprah, a billionaire and the owner of her own production company, would focus on other things or at least leave other people out of her neurosis, but she can’t seem to be OK unless she lets everyone else in on her rationalizations and excuses.

In 2023, Oprah was still a board member of Weight Watchers, a company she bought stock in before she joined. In 2024, she admitted that she started using a drug to help lose weight, and by the time she made this confession, she had been taking it for several months. Oprah didn’t step down from her position on the board of Weight Watchers back in 2023 when she started taking the drug; she waited until this year to do so. Once she was outed, she threw some money at the problem by donating to charity, a common action frauds take to make themselves look less corrupt.

That was bad enough, deceiving individuals by losing weight on a drug without disclosing this to any Weight Watchers members, but because, underneath all that sham confidence and real success, she’s an insecure woman, she decided to host a dishonest television special called “An Oprah Special: Shame, Blame, and the Weight Loss Revolution." She claimed this special was about normalizing talking about weight loss. What she should have titled it is, “An Oprah Special: I Want to be Adored.” Oprah doesn’t want to normalize talk about weight loss; she wants approval from her audience to take drugs in order to look a certain way, though she will probably tell you the drugs are for health.

I didn’t watch the full special and have no desire to do so. Watching Oprah justify taking these kinds of drugs is like watching an active anorexic talk about the benefits of taking speed. These drugs she's taking and promoting are prescription drugs designed and approved by the FDA to treat diabetes. Some doctors provide them to individuals who are obese or who meet other criteria. The drugs were not meant to be given to people who simply want to lose weight and have money to buy them, but some shady healthcare professionals will sell them to willing customers.

In a lot of ways, I feel sorry for Oprah. To be that much of a powerhouse and still be caught up in an illusionary beauty image that's circulating in her own head is depressing. In her special, she stated, "I come to this conversation with the hope that we can start releasing the stigma and the shame and the judgment, to stop shaming other people for being overweight or how they choose to lose -- or not lose -- weight, and most importantly, to stop shaming ourselves." But how is taking a potentially dangerous drug in order to lose weight and conform to society’s warped beauty stereotypes removing the shame around anything?

For obvious reasons, Oprah didn't go too deeply into the side effects and dangers of these drugs in her little special. From what I gather, Ozempic and other related drugs are medications used primarily for Type 2 diabetes. They’re used off-label for weight loss as well, meaning this isn’t the suggested usage. The common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, belching, stomach pain, fast heartbeat, and constipation, to name a few. Severe side effects of these prescription drugs include gastroparesis, allergic reactions, changes in vision, kidney failure, gallbladder issues, and pancreatitis. Also, Ozempic carries an FDA warning on the box for the risk of thyroid C-cell tumors.

Ultimately, Oprah is and already was free to do whatever the fuck she wants. She’s so desperate for approval that it’s mind-boggling, though. The fact that she had to hold this televised rationalization fest shows how stuck she is in obsessing about her weight. I agree in part that society did this to her. The public has never been kind when it comes to her or anyone else's weight, but maybe if she hadn’t made it such an issue by promoting fad diets like Slim Fast and flaunting her slim body and then hiding it when she gained weight, people would have lost interest. I don’t blame her for being a product of our society, but I will call her out on inflicting her unhealthy obsessions and behaviors on all of us.

Why Breaking Bad Is An Outstanding Series

2024-03-19T07:24:00.000-07:00

I've been MIA for longer than I realized. It's not that I haven't had the intent or desire to create a blog post -- I've thought about many topics and even started to jot down some notes a few times only to delete what I’ve written -- it’s that I’m lacking the tenacity to complete what I barely start. Sometimes my efforts immediately feel pointless, so I get rid of what I've written. Other times, I get overwhelmed and tell myself I don’t have the time, talent, or energy for writing and erase the few words I attempted to assemble. I continually compare myself to any author I've just read, most recently Stephen King and Karin Slaughter, and then get discouraged at my lack of creativity when it comes to word assembly. But, despite my excuses that my schedule is tight, guess who finds time to tune out the world and watch Netflix?

Recently, I started watching The Walking Dead. I'm about six seasons into it, but I ended up taking a break, something I pretty much never do when binge-watching a specific production, and, instead, gorged on Breaking Bad for the sixth or seventh time. Oddly, no matter how many times I watch it, I never tire of observing Breaking Bad's incredibly well-developed characters. In fact, I once watched all five seasons back-to-back in probably record time and, once I got to the end, immediately rewatched the show in its entirety. When I first saw the pilot on actual television back in 2008, I was instantly intrigued.

Based on that single viewing, I had a feeling the series was going to be exceptional and was hooked right from the start. A small group of individuals started posting about the show on social media, so I followed along, curious to know what people were thinking and glad I wasn't the only one excited about watching. Imagine how hard it was to have to wait a week for resolution with some of the cliffhangers!

It's not that I dislike The Walking Dead. It's actually a great horror drama. You can see the comic book influence with its over-the-top gore and grand superhero-like moments. A lot of it is entertaining and visually shocking, and there are profoundly emotional moments, too. I just prefer the style of Breaking Bad which has its own approach to visuals and cinematography. The decision to temporarily stop binging one show in favor of another got me wondering why Breaking Bad is such a masterpiece. Below is what I came up with plus a few additional thoughts on the topic. None of this is groundbreaking, but I put some thought into this post:

Even those who don’t necessarily like Breaking Bad overall will agree that the character development is exceptional. Developing characters doesn’t need to present a long storyline about the individual’s childhood or excessive deep dives into a person’s past. The brilliance of Breaking Bad is the way viewers get to know the cast quickly by how they look, act, and think. Their mannerisms, wardrobes, music choices, and conversations provide a deeper look into who they are and why they act the way they do.

A good example of character development is the progression of Walter White. Despite his transformation from a humble science teacher with cancer to an overbearing, manipulative, and dangerous drug kingpin, Walter is a likable character. Throughout the seasons, Walt’s appearance gradually changed. Initially, he wore lighter clothing and looked like a stereotypical high school teacher, but over time, he wore darker or more vivid attire to reflect his criminal tendencies. Even his expression changed from bewildered to stern as he gained confidence, arrogance even, and power. Eventually, the hardened version of Walt was dominant. Underneath it, though, there was still a kernel of the softer man.

Walt, season 1

Walt season 5

In earlier episodes, Walt would alter between the two personas rather rapidly, one minute the tough killer and the next the timid father of two trying to make up excuses to cover his tracks, but toward the end, the original Walt was hard to spot, until the final episode. It’s in this last show that Walt sacrifices everything, including himself, for those he loves. While I compare the two versions, I don't want to make it sound like I think Walt didn't make the choices he did. He is not a victim, but, just as with Tony Soprano who did awful things and murdered people, there's still something likable about the guy.

A lot of people I know claim to prefer Saul, Walt's shady lawyer, over Walt. In the spinoff Better Call Saul, it becomes more apparent that Saul, while having some good qualities, was born the way he is while Walt developed into what he is.

In the series finale of Better Call Saul, Saul “Slippin’ Jimmy” and Walt talk about time travel and regrets while waiting in a bunker for Ed Galbraith to help them escape to different locations with new identities. Walt eventually says he would go back in time to the period before he was pushed out of the company he helped found, Gray Matter. The assumption is that if he had stayed, he would have been wealthy enough to avoid becoming a criminal. Saul confesses that his big regret is that he slipped and hurt his knee while scamming someone. At this revelation, Walt understands that Saul was always a greedy scammer. His desire to go back in time has nothing to do with being a better person or helping others or avoiding a terrible outcome; it’s about pulling off a scam without hurting himself. It’s about greed.

Breaking Bad showcased individuals who made you feel, truly, madly, deeply. In contrast, Saul, the main character in Better Call Saul, was largely unfeeling, though he had a few tender moments. As a result, the show relied more on side characters to bring emotional content to the production.

Let’s face it, though, Better Call Saul wouldn’t have been a show without Breaking Bad. Jimmy may be funny and sly, but he lacks depth.

It’s not that Saul didn’t have the capacity to feel or lacked the ability to be selfless -- he did have a few kind moments, especially with his partner and eventual wife and then ex, Kim -- but, deep down, he’s a fraud. Overall, it was difficult for him to do the right thing, even when the right path was clear. I’m not saying Walt is the better person with the murders and outrageous things he did, but the characters in Breaking Bad were often caught between right and wrong with their paths much more muddy. In the same way the Mafia can be dedicated to family and The Family, Walt and Jesse were fiercely loyal to a few select individuals and, for the most part, each other.

In the end, both Walt and Saul end up mostly alone, but only Walt is fulfilled looking back on his life. As he admitted, he liked what he was doing. For him, it wasn’t just making money that mattered; it ended up being more about creating the perfect product. And he was good at what he did. For that, he was proud, even though his job as a criminal eventually came at the expense of his family, the one thing he was so desperately trying to protect. Still, he went out knowing they would be taken care of while Saul went out king schyster of the prison, a hero to other prisoners only.

Bill and Saul before Saul is sent to prison.

One could argue that Saul’s confession at the end before he was locked up helped Kim avoid further investigation, but what Saul said was already known to the authorities and everyone involved. It’s possible that with Saul taking a heavier sentence, Howard Hamlin’s widow wouldn’t feel the need to go after Kim, but that’s not a given. Ultimately, Saul didn’t really rescue Kim, even if he thought his confession might help.

In the Breaking Bad finale, viewers see that Walt came around and proved his loyalty to his family but also to Jesse. He left this world knowing Jesse was alive because of him, and even though there was an incredible amount of resentment and even hate between the two, a fondness still existed. Despite his transformation from a bumbling science teacher with cancer to an overbearing, manipulative, and dangerous drug kingpin, Walter is a character with a heart, capable of understanding and forgiveness, and Jesse always had heart, even in his worst moments.

In contrast to Saul’s confession, Walt’s false confession to his wife Skyler on the phone he knew was tapped absolved her of most of her wrongdoing. He silently cries as he implies, for the sake of Marie, Skyler’s sister, and the authorities that Skyler would have been in trouble had she not gone along with his plan, even though she very willingly got involved once she knew what Walt was up to. With this admission, everyone would think that Walt’s poor wife was the victim, forced to do as Walt said.

And to give the family closure, he admits that Hank, Marie’s husband who was a DEA agent, is not coming back, though he doesn’t tell the truth about who killed him. In many ways, Walt is the more likable anti-hero despite the brutal things he did. Perhaps because, at some point or another, we all resort to doing something we feel is awful, we can relate to and maybe even secretly admire the bad guy. Walt just took his wrongdoings to a level most of us couldn’t or wouldn’t want to imagine for ourselves.

Throughout the show, Walt got into the habit of telling himself or trying to convince himself that he was cooking meth to make money for his family before he died from lung cancer. In the beginning, this was true, but he later admits that he liked his manufacturing role.

Skyler was in a similar boat. After she was dragged into the mess and made aware, it was her choice to go along. She could have had her first lawyer call the cops, but she told the lawyer she didn’t want her son to know his dad was a criminal. In that, she accepted her role as an accomplice. Walt’s phone call at the end and him sneaking the coordinates of where authorities could find Hank’s body to Skyler were moments when Walt really did take huge risks to help those he loved.

Obviously, even with the great writing, none of the storyline would have played out as brilliantly had the acting not been phenomenal. There’s a reason why Breaking Bad has 92 wins in various television award categories and several wins for supporting and lead actor. In 2014, the cast won the Screen Actor’s Guild Award for best ensemble in a drama series. And really, the entire cast was outstanding for all five seasons. The characters are some of the most memorable individuals ever assebmbled for an acting endeavor. Even the lesser characters like Wendy, Skinny Pete, Badger, and Jane were remarkable.

Breaking Bad Cast -SAG Awards

What really made the show great, though, was, indeed, the writing. The plot twists, the stories within stories, the subtle and not so subtle humor, the symbolism, and the life lessons are all wrapped up into a thoughtful, sometimes poetic script.

The writers had a way of bringing nostalgia into a very modern and evergreen show, and the soundtrack mirrored this genius delivery. When, after Walt endures a harrowing night that included being forced to witness a murder and almost losing his life, Skyler asks him if he’s OK, and Walt replies with a smirk, “Right as rain,” it’s as if Stephen King himself had his hand in the script.

Those who claim Breaking Bad is boring probably do so because the show relies heavily on dialogue more than action-packed spectacles. It’s an incredibly quotable series, yet there are some great nail-biting, action-packed moments.

Some also feel the flashforwards don't give as much of a punch once the storyline is played out, but foreshadowing is usually more for intrigue in the moment than an overly shocking reveal. Besides, nearly every episode or every couple of episodes eventually comes full circle.

Another criticism is the anti-woman angle, however, both Skyler and Marie, the two main female roles, were career women and showed strength and courage throughout the series. There were other examples of women in powerful positions, but, just like in reality, Griselda Blanco being the more obvious exception, there aren’t a lot of female drug lords, runners, or manufacturers. The drug and criminal world will generally attract anti-feminists.

Vince Gilligan, the creator, writer, producer, and director of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, said that he was inspired by The Godfather when he came up with the idea for the show, but there are moments that are reminiscent of movies and series such as Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, The Wire, Trainspotting, and The Sopranos, to name a few. Ultimately, I will always think of Breaking Bad as the GOAT television series and the episode "One Minute" as the best episode in television history. I have great admiration for people who created shows like The Walking Dead, The Sopranos, and The Wire, and the spinoff Better Call Saul was excellent, too, even with its depressing ending. It’s just that Breaking Bad is in a league all its own.

Vince Gilligan

Top 10 Breaking Bad Quotes

1. Just because you shot Jesse James, don't make you Jesse James (Mike to Walt)

2. I am the Danger (Walt to Skyler)

3. La Familia es todo (Hector to the cousins)

4. You’re an insane, degenerate piece of filth, and you deserve to die (Walt to Tuco)

5. Say my name (Walt to Declan)

6. No more half-measures (Mike to Walt)

7. Say you want this (Jesse to Walt)

8. Well, then why should we do anything more than once? (Jane to Jesse)

9. I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was really — I was alive. (Walt to Skyler)

10. A man provides (Gustavo to Walt)

Honorable Mention: All life comes with a death sentence (Walt to another cancer patient)

Good Intentions Don't Always Equal Good Outcomes

2023-11-13T17:45:00.000-08:00

**Possible Triggering Content***

The body positivity movement started out as a campaign with good intentions. For years before anyone took a stand, even slightly overweight individuals were mocked, ridiculed, and discriminated against, but in the 60s, a group of fed-up residents in New York held a sit-in to promote fat acceptance. In the 70s, fat became a feminist issue, meaning female writers like Susie Orbach and later Geneen Roth were letting their followers know that body size is less about food and more about protection, power, hidden emotions, sexuality, and even politics. These concepts helped many people of all sizes feel more comfortable in their own skin and more at ease being themselves. It also helped a lot of them lose weight, once they better understood the root cause of their overeating.

At the time of this great fat-acceptance awakening, the movement wasn't outright ignoring men or lean individuals who supported the cause. In fact, many men were part of the crusade, but by 2012, with the founding of the actual Body Positive movement, there was a shift to celebrate specifically fat women and later fat women of color. All of this seemed like a necessary and even good outcome, a backlash to the years of suppression and discrimination fat women, especially fat African American women, had endured, but sometime after 2012, the entire body-positive movement jumped the shark.

In more recent years, advocates for body positivity have gone past the concept of acceptance into the arena of defiance, which sounds somewhat reasonable but not when it's more of a "I'll cut off my nose to spite my face" gesture. This also includes members of the movement excluding anyone who's not fat, even those who were formally fat because that just means those now thin creatures have sold out and must be shunned.

In the past, any form of eating that caused harm or was done out of sheer emotion such as spite, anger, sadness, or even joy was seen as an issue that needed to be addressed. Yes, accept yourself, but work on understanding what drives a potentially unhealthy or excessive behavior and try to modify it in order to move toward one that's healthier to truly honor your body and its needs. That was considered a healthy approach to understanding food and its effects on the human body. Eating to satisfy an emotional craving is OK, healthy to a degree even, if you're aware you're doing it and doing it within the realm of what's reasonable. Now, eating to excess or as a rebellion is celebrated. It truly has nothing to do with health anymore and is all about protest or pouting, really.

Before I move forward, I want to make it very, very clear that this post is not about how fat people aren't athletic or "shouldn't" eat as much or anything even close to that. Obviously, fat shaming can be as damaging as supporting eating in defiance. I'm 100 percent not here to shame anyone. The individuals who are promoting a healthy lifestyle no matter their size really are inspirational, and I fully support them and their efforts to reach others. I'm addressing more a concept of eating or overeating in response to "haters" or to anyone who makes a comment not fully in line with what an influencer wants to hear. That's unhealthy and tends towards disordered eating.

I always try to look at this from the opposite standpoint. What if, for example, I promoted compulsive exercise and restrictive eating, and then claimed I was content with my body. Then, if anyone called me out for putting my unhealthy habits on display, I told the world I was going to skip even more calories throughout the day. Imagine if my readers encouraged me, cheered me on, and claimed I was heroic for taking a stand against all these bullies. That's the Internet. You can find examples similar to this in any arena. The eating disorder world is rife with them.

The Internet has a way of making certain behaviors and even some extreme forms of mental illness seem acceptable, even when these disorders cause harm. Pretty much anyone can find support and the wrong kind of encouragement for destructive or self-destructive conduct. There are pro-ana groups, support for people who want to be over 500 lbs, and online communities that encourage participants to believe in group or gang stalking. There's actually a podcast episode on Sword and Scale about a man who was in such a group, believed he was being gang-stalked, got validation from other unwell individuals, and then ended up murdering several people because the Internet fed his paranoid delusions.

When it comes to echo chambers online, I look at the absurdities, lies, and misleading content some liberal running journalists have promoted, especially regarding both transgender athletes and DSD athletes, and feel disgusted I ever associated myself with both running and the left. It's funny how quiet most of them have been regarding Caster Semenya's recent comments about her testes. If you want to listen to a very good analysis of Caster's situation, one that's fair, respectful of her, and honest, The Real Science of Sport addressed the issue in this episode.

What I've noticed is that at some point, encouraging self-expression became supporting a new form of women's oppression. Women on the left, race directors, and anyone afraid of being canceled were so worried about hurting anyone's feelings, they didn't think or care that they were degrading women's sport by insisting biological men compete against them.

They also didn't think about how it would look to offer influencers, some who run 22+ minutes per mile, prime spots in the elite corral at major marathons. Hey, as long as they look good to their peers for supporting this mess, keep at it, right? Fortunately, I see that the majority of women on both sides are in agreement that biological men competing in women's sport is, indeed, unfair, and most people are like me in that they support anyone at all running a marathon but prefer elite corrals stay reserved for those running elite times. Honoring excellence does not mean disregarding everyone else.

At no point do I expect to see any of these so-called journalists or loud pundits on the left admit they might have been wrong or offer any new commentary. That's typically the way cowards operate: ignore any confrontation or even civil conversation, and keep the blinders on as much as possible.

In news closer to home, I was relieved to see that in a local election, a certain individual didn't get elected to city council. I specifically voted, just so that I could vote against Waylon Lewis. I didn't care who won seats in his stead; I just didn't want him in charge of or anywhere near any policies for this city.

One of the reasons I was so adamant that this individual not be voted into office is because I've heard and read too many off-putting stories about him. There have been rumors about his alleged abuse and mistreatment of women - I met a lady who worked for him and heard some shit - and blog posts detailing his online abuse of them. My own interactions with him are limited. I reached out to him once regarding an interview for a radio station and got an arrogant reply that made me decide to drop the whole thing. I had a feeling, one of those gut instincts that told me to stay away, and I'm relieved I did.

But the very concrete reason why I don't like the guy is because of the way he treated his older dog. I may have told this story once before, but for those who don't know it, I was walking to work one day and noticed he was ahead of me with his dog. The dog appeared to be old and wasn't walking fast. As I got closer, the unleashed dog veered slowly toward the street. Mr. Lewis, not aware I was behind him, growled, "GET BACK HERE,' and with a grand gesture, raising his hand up first, swung his whole arm down and grabbed the dog's collar and some of the scruff of his neck, and then yanked the dog toward the sidewalk. I let out a gasp so loud (I really was shocked) Mr. Lewis turned slightly and, I'm sure, noticed me, at which point he loosened his grip on the dog and acted like nothing had happened.

I kept thinking if this asshole does this in public, what must go on behind closed doors? But maybe it was just a bad moment. Who knows, but given the rumors, the outright accusations, and the incident with his dog, I simply can't find any reason to like the guy. Hooray that he didn't get the votes and is not on Boulder's city council. He lost, he lost hard.

Since I haven't been writing creatively much lately, I'm afraid it shows. But after a long layoff, I have to start somewhere. Maybe this post is a bit disjointed, but I felt compelled to write, something I haven't felt the urge to do in a while. On the other hand, I got this bizarre idea even more recently to write a book of short horror stories. The novel will have to continue waiting, even though I'm coming closer to formulating an interesting ending in my head. I'm just not there yet and have many thousands of words yet to write. God, I'm lazy when it comes to that.

As far as running, I haven't been doing a lot of it. Just when I have a fun, harder workout, my hamstring/butt tears again, and I have to back off for a while. So I'm doing a little jogging here and there and trying to accept it. Work is still hard, but my coworkers are incredible and very, very inspiring. At times I'm completely overwhelmed, but each day I make it to the closing hour is a victory. And, fortunately, there are some very competent people there to guide me.

Time Slips Away

2023-08-07T09:51:00.012-07:00

It looks like I've neglected this blog again. Actually, I've neglected writing in general. Occasionally, I write or edit a few lines in the novel I will probably never finish, but I haven't put much energy into arranging words on a computer screen unless it's documenting daily logs at work, a requirement for all employees, from veterinarians to customer service representatives.

Because I'm not working as many hours as I was previously, I've been taking on pet-sitting gigs and other odd jobs. So far, it's going pretty well. I also started a non-profit but haven't really gotten into fundraising yet. Twice a month, I take pet food to pet owners in need, and I've also helped with veterinary bills. At some point, I will run out of my own money, so I'll have to start asking others for donations.

Somewhere along the way, I started hobbling outside again. What I do is so far from running, but I think I could safely call it a jog without being too far off the mark. I can't really do anything too fast or too hard, but I'm grateful I'm able to move about with at least a little less pain.

Work is going well, but I'm still really insecure. There is a lot to learn, and the fast-paced environment is a switch. It's overwhelming at times. My co-workers are all really nice, though, and they have been very encouraging. I worry that I'm not catching on quickly enough, but my manager keeps reassuring me that I'm doing fine. I wish I could believe her!

Normally, I wouldn't bring up particular incidents from work, but I think enough time has passed to feel OK with discussing some of the details of a particular episode. Obviously, I would never name names or go into too many fine points, but, as I often point out, writing helps me process. Also, if what I write can help anyone else process events in his or her life, then jotting down thoughts here will have been worth it.

I will mention that what I'm about to bring up is upsetting and involves animals, so if you're looking for something more uplifting, you might want to stop at this point and head over to The Dodo.

Sometimes at work, things can get a little bit hectic. In fact, the other night, I was working alone, and I had four people on hold, two people waiting for service, and a few open notes to finish from previous calls. Fortunately, my new job isn't usually that crazy, but it can be a little stressful at times, especially when it's just one of us at the front desk.

Not necessarily related to work, there are days when I swear you can feel something in the air, something almost a little ominous or energetically off. I had that feeling strongly when the shooting at King Soopers occurred and twice before I came upon two separate accidents on the road. I don't want to get into woo-woo territory, but I do believe people who are sensitive can tap into some sort of sixth sense. It's not that I had a vision of something terrible about to happen on the day I'm about to describe, more that I felt some kind of nervous worry, more so than I usually do. I worry a lot. This was different.

My job is always easier when there are two of us at the front desk, but my co-worker had just gone to lunch, something I'm relieved we are offered, an actual lunch break with no work-related interruptions. In the end, my fellow employee not being there initially was probably a good thing, because she had a very difficult time emotionally with the incident, understandably. I had recently taken a call from someone who wanted to schedule an appointment, and I hadn't even had time to fill in the details for the medical staff regarding that call when the phone rang again. When I answered, I had no idea that this one call would flip the day upside down and affect the lives of every employee and, of course, the pet's family so drastically.

Because this is such a difficult topic, I want to preface that I write this with no judgment. Humans make mistakes. Sometimes good people make terrible, life-altering mistakes. The reason why I'm bringing this up is more to observe my own reactions and to try to let go of some of the heaviness I'm feeling around all of it. We all err from time to time, and sometimes the mistakes we make cause a great deal of suffering, either to ourselves or others, sometimes both.

The gentleman who called was clearly distressed. He was crying and said he was on his way to the clinic. I got the name of the pet, a dog, and said that I needed to check with the medical staff to see if they had time to see the animal. In emergency situations, if the medical staff doesn't have time, we refer the client to an actual ER veterinarian. The owner said that he was nearly there and that he thought his pet might be dead, so I told him we would figure it all out when he got there. Then I ran to tell the medical staff so that they could prepare for the emergency. I wasn't able to get any details, only that the dog would be arriving in less than five minutes and that it may have already passed.

Despite the afternoon being booked, enough of the medical staff were able to jump into action without leaving other clients unattended. Someone opened the door as the gentleman who had called rushed in carrying his dog. I still had no idea what had happened, but the scene did not look good. The dog was limp in its owner's arms. At this time, I had some hope that the dog was still alive, but there it was, that uneasy feeling lingering in the air. Moments later, my heart sank before I heard the news.

Indeed, the medical staff determined that the pet had passed, and the anguish conveyed in the owner's sobs was palpable. It turns out the dog got heat stroke after its owner accidentally left it in his car.

Every time I write a blog post, I get about halfway through or so and feel like quitting. I question why I'm even writing and start getting critical of my writing style, forgetting the big picture. I wonder if it's worth pushing through to the finish. After the last line in the paragraph above, it's hard to know what to say anyway. I suppose this is partly why it generally takes me so long to finish a post.

After a tragedy like this, there are so many questions that come up, but how, why, and where couldn't be fully addressed in real-time when there was still the matter of tending to other family members who would be arriving soon as well as the clients who were already there. Even before the family members entered the building, there was an aura of sadness and stress in the area that would bleed into the coming days. In that moment, I knew I needed to keep my shit together, but I heard a quiver in my voice on the third call I took. Seeing others in pain will always affect me on some level, and when grief is so raw, it's impossible to ignore, impossible not to feel.

It got harder to go through the motions after the rest of the family was present. Still, I shoved the emotions down as best I could, as I'm reasonably good at doing, and continued trying to focus on my job, even though my mind was foggy. My attention kept drifting to the room where the deceased dog lay resting on a towel on the floor while the young couple lying next to it cried and spoke to their sweet pet behind the closed door. The gentleman's parents, both with tears in their eyes, paced the lobby. By this time, my co-worker had returned and both of us were fed bits of information about the incident. She needed to excuse herself for a moment. I heard her crying in the bathroom and wished so badly that I could ease everyone's pain. The air was thick with emotion.

Once the owner and his family and girlfriend had all said their goodbyes to their furry friend and left, and the initial shock of what had happened eased, it was nice that employees and employers checked in with each other. It was a rough day for everyone, and it wasn't over yet. There was still a euthanasia appointment on the schedule for an older dog later that evening. Though arranged euthanasia for older or unwell animals is less traumatic, it's still painful and sad to lose a pet, no matter the age.

It took me and several other employees a few days to come to terms with all that had happened that day. One thing was clear, the gentleman was feeling tremendous guilt, and I wish I could have found a way to help him somehow. I think all of us felt for him. I don't know how I would feel in that or a similar situation, but I can't even imagine how awful it must be. He loved his dog, and while it's hard for me to understand how anyone could forget pets or children in cars, I know he's not the first and won't be the last to do so. I assume it happens more frequently the more humans are distracted by all they need to get done during the day as well as the constant bombardment by whatever is happening on their electronic devices.

Any emotions I swallowed during the turmoil have yet to resurface. I don't know where unexpressed difficult feelings go, but I assume they linger somewhere inside. Maybe they pop up at unexpected or inappropriate times or are processed and changed into different feelings that are easier to manage.

Two of the hardest emotions to process are grief and anger. Oddly, happiness can be a challenge, only because there's often a dip into sadness after moments of being elated, the body's weird way of attempting homeostasis. Probably the best way to manage emotions of any kind is to vent, through art, writing, music, talking, exercise, or expressing the emotion (crying, yelling, etc.) As long as the expression is done in a healthy way, let it out, they say. But for some of us, it's not easy. However, sometimes even just acknowledging how you're feeling can be helpful. A really wonderful coach used to have me describe "tired" when I was struggling in a workout. Where did I feel it, and how did it manifest? The act of describing the sensation will often ease any discomfort associated with the feeling. I believe it can be true of emotions, too.

I don't know if writing this will stop the tape that keeps playing in my head or the thoughts that keep coming up regarding the incident, but I think writing will help in some way. If nothing more, it has made me feel at least a little bit productive when my tendency is to languish or shut down completely.

The New “Beauty” Standard *Trigger Warning

2023-04-18T05:58:00.014-07:00

Recently, Dylan Mulvaney, an American actress, Tik Tok personality, and Instagram influencer, made quite a stir when several companies offered paid partnerships and endorsement deals with the transgender activist, giving her a wider audience, various products, and, of course, money. In the case of Anheuser-Busch, the marketing strategy for Bud Light backfired, and many called for a boycott after seeing the rising star in a promo spot, leaving the beer company in a tizzy as share prices initially fell. It's hard to say what the lasting effects will be, but the higher-ups issued an immediate apology after the boycott began and hoped for a turnaround as they featured one of their Clydesdale horses in a brand-new, pro-America ad.

I don’t drink much alcohol and don’t really care who promotes mediocre beer, so none of this really concerns me, but both those on the left and right were involved in the boycott. I understand why people were upset and also why others were in support of the trans actress. My goal here isn't to offend anyone, and in this particular case, I honestly don't care one way or another who drinks or doesn't drink Bud Light or who promotes or boycotts the company. What concerns me more is how this particular transgender individual is influencing ~~her~~ his audience.

It should be noted that Mulvaney is considered a comedian, though some may question ~~her~~ his ability to be funny, and, despite having several types of facial surgeries, ~~she~~ he has yet to have bottom surgery as part of transitioning. In fact, ~~she~~ he seems to enjoy drawing attention to ~~her~~ his crotch and was called out for ~~her~~ his behavior when ~~she~~ he ask ~~her~~ his Tik Tok audience to "normalize the bulge" while wearing "shopping shorts," clearly aware that ~~her~~ his dick was noticeable while sporting tight shorts. That's a sentence I never thought I would type. Sorry if I sound prudish, but this has more to do with how adult influencers potentially target children than being offended by particular body parts.

Mulvaney shows off her bulge

This doesn't seem normal or appropriate for young audiences, yet I didn’t see any age restriction on the content. Both ~~she~~ he and Jeffrey Marsh have directly addressed children in their videos, though Marsh in particular has tried to deny it and eventually changed the content settings after facing a severe backlash. In the linked video, it might sound like Mulvaney is giving out good advice, but both ~~she~~ he and Marsh have been accused of guiding kids away from parents and family and toward other support systems, even though Mulvaney's family has, according to ~~her~~ his uncle, always loved and supported ~~her~~ him.

Some of the more controversial or perplexing partnerships with Mulvaney include Kate Spade, Instacart, Aritzia, KitchenAid, and, of course, Anheuser-Busch. Apparently, there are a lot of partnerships, but the one with Nike caught more people's attention, including mine, although I thought ~~her~~ his Tampax performance, which may not have been an actual partnership, just some free product in exchange for a little online advertising, was a slap in the face of women and girls. These skits parody and mock women, not support them.

Do you know how many women and girls are in need of these kinds of products around the world? I'm not sure handing out free tampons to someone who claims to identify as a girl (why not a woman at ~~her~~ his age?) but doesn't always act the part (and much of what ~~she~~ he does is acting no matter how ~~she~~ he identifies) as opposed to hiring or giving out free tampons to an actual girl or woman was the best move, but again, large companies don’t really care about individuals. They care about making a profit and getting the name of their company circulating in the public sphere.

As someone put it, "My womanhood is not your costume." But businesses are jumping at the chance to work with Mulvaney, even if there’s a risk of alienating potential customers and the outcome might not be desirable. The potential interest or even controversy is what draws in these businesses. No press is bad press if it gets your name out there, in theory anyway. Whatever the reason, Mulvsney is the it girl, but it's becoming more and more obvious that not everyone is happy about ~~her~~ his increasing fame.

Tampax has been a misogynistic mess on Twitter long before the company offered a trans person free schwag to promote its products, but after the little performance with Mulvaney, it became obvious that their primary interest is being seen, most obviously in this case. I know they are involved in some useful programs that assist young girls with menstrual start-up kits, but that doesn't erase their more questionable actions. Back in 2022, their official Twitter account posted inappropriate content, but before I share the tweet, keep in mind that girls start menstruating on average around 11-12 years old, meaning some start well before becoming a teenager. That said, the post isn't even well-suited or funny for adults and seems to be directed at men more than women. It's all kinds of cringe:

You're in their DMs. We're in them.
We are not the same.

Back to Nike, another reason to cringe. I've already brought up the giant shitty shoe company before, and while I don't personally have an issue with any trans individuals being selected for advertising purposes when appropriate, I am adamantly opposed to transgender women mocking and belittling women while displacing them and taking away opportunities in the same way I am when it comes to transgender women competing in female categories in athletics. At least back in 2021, Nike hired an actual transgender female athlete to star in its Play New campaign, and the same can be said of its 2016 ad featuring a transgender man, Chris Mosier.

This year, when Nike invited Mulvaney to prance around in a sports bra and leggings in an effort to promote women's sportswear, female athletes took notice. Some pointed out that Nike doesn't exactly have the best history when it comes to how the company treats women, so hiring a biological male who identifies as a girl and isn't athletic in place of a female athlete shouldn't really surprise anyone. What is surprising is that any business, especially one supposedly dedicated to promoting athletes, would use images fit for a pro-ana group as a selling point.

Sharron Davies, a former Olympic swimmer had this to say about the new Nike ad:

The ad feels like a parody of what women are. In the past it was always seen as an insult to say, "run like a girl" and here we've got someone behaving in a way that's very un-sporty and very unathletic and it's so frustrating when only one percent of USA sponsorship dollar goes to females in sport. That Nike would do this feels like a kick in the teeth.

Because I know anyone who reads this blog could potentially be triggered by what looks like thinspiration content, I'm going to add a second warning here.

Back in 2015, France and several other countries took a stand by banning models who were deemed too thin when it was revealed that images of underweight women and girls contribute to the development of eating disorders. Back then, the health ministry in France said its aim was to "fight eating disorders and inaccessible ideals of beauty," a take that was celebrated as a step forward in an industry that had previously showcased not just thin models but dangerously thin models, like Luisel and Eliana Ramos and Isabelle Caro who eventually died from complications related to anorexia.

Enter Nike, 2023.

Mulvaney has always been petite, but through ~~her~~ his transition, it appears that ~~she~~ he may have become even leaner. Because of ~~her~~ his biology, it's easier for ~~her~~ his to maintain lean body mass than it is for those with XX chromosomes. Over time, hormone replacement therapy can have some effect on body fat, but estrogen treatment won't drastically change an individual's physique unless the treatment is combined with lifestyle and dietary changes as well. Several studies show that the lean body mass of trans women remains above that of cisgender women, even after over a year of treatment.

What Mulvaney and the companies that use ~~her~~ his images perpetuate are derogatory stereotypes and unattainable new "beauty" standards targeting young girls and women, and the trans community, too. The images shown below demonstrate an unrealistic body ideal for girls and most individuals, even if they engage in dieting and exercise. It would have to be excessive to reach such a lean look. People were so angry when fashion designers did this, but for some reason, Mulvaney gets praised.

I'm not suggesting anything about Mulvaney's mental health, but I am aware of how these kinds of images can appear to others. Female athletes, even some who claim to be advocates of eating disorder recovery, are guilty of the same type of thing when they showcase images taken at angles that intentionally make their bodies look longer and much leaner, but the fat percentage of a female will never be as low as that of a man unless ~~she~~ he starves ~~her~~ himself into possibly unhealthy or even dangerous territory.

Before transitioning

These are not images that inspire girls to be healthy

You might as well put these on a pro-ana website

Unfortunately, these kinds of images often inspire comments from young girls wanting to change their bodies

People should boycott Nike for all kinds of reasons. This latest stunt can be added to the ever-growing pile, but chances are little will change. Nike is too big, and exposing the shady things they have done in the past didn't put much of a dent in its success.

I don't really know what the solution is when it comes to supporting transgender individuals while protecting vulnerable populations, but I can't bring myself to get behind anyone promoting a very clearly unhealthy beauty standard like the one Mulvaney is presenting. I just can't. Young girls and women have enough pressure on them to look a certain way, and now huge companies are shoving these kinds of images in our faces? No thank you.

And fuck, I missed an opportunity for a "hold my beer" joke. sigh.

** ETA I changed the pronouns to what they should have been from the start. I'm not playing along anymore and made a mistake in attempting to appease others when it never felt right to call a man "she".

Running and Identity

2023-04-10T07:40:00.036-07:00

I've told this story before, but I still wrestle with my identity. Who am I? Why am I here? None of these questions are new. Running always gave me a sense of purpose. Few things in life have replaced that feeling since I gave up pushing myself in sport.

An essay in two parts.

When I started running way back in junior high -- I'm giving away my age by admitting I went to junior high, not middle school -- I very quickly earned the nickname "the runner," and I certainly identified as such. It felt like running wasn't just something I did; it was part of me. The activity was who I was back then. I ran everywhere, to and from school, up and down the street, around the track, or up in the mountains, and it didn't matter if it was with or without company. I felt compelled to run. I had to run. More than a compulsion or maybe in addition to being a compulsion, it was a challenge. Whereas many people look at running as a chore or task they do at some point during the day, running was an event in which I partook because I both needed and, at least on some level, wanted to, at least for a time.

Back then, I looked forward to running in a way and was excited to race. Despite the usual nerves that everyone faces before a big event, I had a hunger to compete, and I had the energy, even though I wasn't getting the nutrients my body needed. Grace period. It was nearly impossible to hold me back, though a few people tried with words of wisdom.

There was some concern that I was doing too much too soon, but I felt like I had found my right path, my passion, and a sport in which I could excel, unlike so many activities I had tried in the past. I had dreams, big ones, but at every turn, there were my eating disorder and my compulsions that still plague me even today, though I'm no longer deep in the throes of it all, at least on the surface. Deep down, it's hard to tell.

Eventually, it all fell to shit, but not all at once. The love for and eagerness to engage in the sport that I experienced would eventually give way to fear and then dread. At some point along my miserable journey, love turned to outright hate and remained that way for a long time, but I still laced up my shoes and got out the door to both train and race.

Oddly and somehow, the identity of being a runner seemed separate from all the heavy baggage that landed on my shoulders later, at least somewhat. When I excelled at the sport, I was able to engage more fully in other activities, so while I was "the runner," I was also a student, a sister, and a daughter and had hobbies like baking, art, and reading.

Once the injuries lined up one after the other, I felt more like "the former runner," and it became easier to spiral the more depression darkened my world. Same shit, different day now. I go through the motions with no real exercise goals or satisfaction but to get through an arbitrary routine. Outside of that, fear causes me to get almost like a form of paralysis, not fully able to accomplish much but several forms of distraction outside of the habitual activity, Netflix and such. It often takes me forever to write a simple blog post when darkness clouds the days.

After battling several major injuries over the last few years, a few so severe they required surgeries, and then coming down with an absolutely merciless case of long-lasting COVID (mentioned again below), I've been thinking more and more about running and identity. <--- one of the better Trail Runner articles.

For me, running hurts now. It's mostly unpleasant, and I don't feel like a runner, not even close. I can no longer say I have a passion for the sport and wonder why I even try most days. More often than not, I don't look forward to it; it's just something I attempt to do. I'm compelled, for whatever reason, to run/hobble/limp around, even if it's only for 10 minutes, like somehow if I do that little amount, I'm still hovering around the title of a runner and connected to other runners in some small way, even though I would never call myself one at the pace I propel myself forward these days.

I miss it, being able to challenge myself on a more mental level when the physical limitations are so severe. It's hard not being able to run on trails or get lost in the moment and let my mind wander while I move outside for an hour. Biking isn't the same nor is walking, and lately, I'm just not able or willing to push myself all that hard like I used to, even on the bike.

It's such a strange experience to be this limited by my previous and current injuries. Little things like crossing the road when it's icy can be such a struggle. Last year or maybe it was the year before, I got stranded on an ice patch because my left foot can't feel how it touches the ground. This is due to several neurectomies. As a result, I'm unstable. Even if the road looks icy when it's not, like when it's wet, my brain tells me I'm slipping. This is not the same condition Kara Goucher has, but I can relate to what she's experiencing.

In my case, it's more a lack of feeling that leads to uncertainty. My brain defaults to the worst-case scenario, and I end up feeling out of sorts, really like I am slipping, even if my foot is firmly planted on the ground. But the limitations aren't just related to feeling unsteady. I'm also dealing with physical imbalances, old injuries that didn't heal properly, and restrictions in my range of motion. Despite all this, I force myself to mix in some hobbling with my usual stationary bike routines.

It seems impossible that I could find something else that calls me or makes my soul sing the way running once did. Horseback riding might, but it's too expensive and time-consuming, and it never reaches the same kind of intensity as running does when it comes to exercise. After my sister's recent fall from her horse that resulted in three fractures in her vertebrae, I'm not so sure I want to take any risks around a large animal anyway.

Throughout this transition from athlete to someone who sort of exercises, it has been difficult to calm my critical mind, and because someone recently made a comment about my appearance, I’ve been feeling more insecure.

Oddly, when people describe me in unflattering ways, all it does is make me feel bad. It doesn’t encourage me to do anything differently, which is common for most people like me. In the past, I have been approached by friends in a very loving and supportive way, and I did manage to get help or make changes. For example, after one surgery, I was looking a little undernourished, and a friend of mine pulled me aside to ask if I was OK. We talked, and I ended up seeing a nutritionist. With some expert guidance, I was able to build back some muscle I had lost throughout the ordeal. I really do have some incredible friends.

*****

I wasn't going to write about this but changed my mind.

The following is probably where this post should have started. I’m breaking it into two parts and, for several reasons, presenting it backward.

I have actually written and deleted much of the content because I'm having a hard time expressing how I feel and don't want to go into too many details. I'm far from perfect and make mistakes. We all do, and when a situation that's incredibly upsetting unfolds, writing helps me process it. It helps me see my errors as well as the wrongdoings of others.

Obviously, there are two sides to every situation. That being said, it's difficult to have any resolution when the world is full of people who project and manipulate, and I don't just mean in situations related to me. The world is a mess right now, but my personal journey is on my mind after an incident that occurred earlier this year left me floored.

It was a long and brutal winter. After battling COVID and then some kind of Long Covid, I ended up with the flu that led to vertigo and pulsatile tinnitus in my right ear. When I went to urgent care for vertigo, the treatment nurse sent me to the ER, and just as I was beginning to feel a little bit better a few days after being in the hospital, I was fired from/quit (it was a case of mutual dissatisfaction) my job where I had worked for almost 20 years. This is all while suffering from issues related to a torn tendon in my hip area and dealing with some very intense family matters. In short, October - February sucked.

I'm not good with getting out of a routine. Not having a sense of control, even if it's a false sense of one, scares me, but now I see just how unhealthy an environment I landed in or perhaps put myself in for so many years. I'm not sure if it was a blessing in disguise (actually, I'm pretty sure it was) that I was pushed out of a stressful situation and into a different kind of stress, that of being jobless, but it happened and there's no turning back now. Lines were crosses that can never be uncrossed.

The good news is that almost immediately after things ended in one area, I was offered a very part-time but ongoing position elsewhere, and this was followed by another, and shortly after that, something else opened up that actually excites me. I took this as a sign that getting away was meant to be, and the people close to me, thank whatever deity in the sky may or may not exist for these individuals, expressed relief and genuine happiness that I was trying something new. Sometimes you don't realize just how bad things are until change is forced upon you, be it exiting a relationship, moving to somewhere new, or altering a routine that no longer serves you.

While I was applying for jobs during a period of almost a week of waiting for any sign of contact from my (now former) employer, I realized anew how shitty a lack of communication is, but this period gave me an opportunity to self-reflect and admit just how compulsive I still am and how my mental health inhibits progress forward. It wasn't until I got the more recent opportunity to do something in a field working with animals that I felt like I could even think about a different way of organizing my life.

Struggling with OCD, there are very few instances in which I could see myself attempting to change, even though I have in the past to some extent, but working with animals is one of them. Every time I volunteer in a vet clinic, I think, "I wish I could be more a part of this kind of meaningful work." An article on Shannon Kopp came to mind as I was writing this.

Previously, I had no real incentive to do things differently (I'm still not quite there yet but am attempting and on a different schedule, at least.) And while much of my winter weight loss was related to being sicker than ever -- even my boss admitted to losing a substantial amount of weight while he was sick with COVID and other illnesses shortly before I was. He also snapped at me and made unflattering comments about my looks and health in front of others right before I left, which was the final blow -- eating disorders along with ODC and other kinds of unhealthy coping mechanisms are often a way to take some kind of action when feeling depressed, overwhelmed, criticized, or unheard, something I have battled for years.

Why is it that so many people just don’t listen or don’t hear? I'm probably guilty of this on some level, too, but not when it comes to the big picture. It's worse when individuals not only don't hear but then attempt to shove words in the mouths of others. That I really, really can't stand.

I'm not sure how much my subconscious being aware of my distress could have played a role in things coming to such an ugly head, but there's more background to this story that I'm not sharing, except to say that it's much more difficult for me to take care of myself in certain environments.

It might seem funny after reading the above complaints to know I actually loved my job, at least for the most part, and was very good at it, the top employee right up until the time I left, but the way I was treated the last few weeks or even months leading up to my departure, you would have thought I was stealing from the company or something. Seriously, I'm still reeling from the unsavory way things went down and probably won't come to terms with it for a while longer. And because individuals can be vindictive and you never really know what they will do, though I have an idea, I will reiterate that this is my perspective on a shitty situation.

Obviously, I liked what I was doing and the people there well enough to stay a long time, but this last year was rough for all kinds of reasons. The bottom line is that I wasn't being heard and should have either found a way to address this or left a lot earlier. That's on me. I stayed because I was grateful to have a job and was dedicated to it, probably to a fault.

I'll add that there were outside factors at play that also made being an employee over the last few years difficult. Maybe my perspective is somewhat skewed, but there's a difference between those who say they appreciate you and those who actually do. As the saying goes, actions always speak louder, and when you truly care about someone, you at least hear them out without projecting or making patronizing comments in front of others, even if it's just to end things, especially if it's to end things after so many years.

When it comes to the perhaps puzzling reasoning of those of us who deal with eating disorders or disordered eating patterns, the thought, "Why work on my health when I feel invisible and can't make a right move in the eyes of certain individuals?" is often at play, though I have to say that I was doing what I could to manage under the circumstances this winter. I was just really, really sick. Again, my problem, not anyone else's. But, on the other hand, because simply eating can lead to uncomfortable feelings for those of us who have lingering issues, being in a physically uncomfortable (cold, messy) or emotionally unpleasant (stressful, negative) environment makes taking steps to consume meals or snacks that much more difficult, and I say this as someone who has no problem munching on protein bars while volunteering (and soon to be working) in a vet clinic.

In the end, just like when ending an unhealthy relationship or a connection to a sport in which you can no longer participate, there's a grieving process to navigate. Things are never all good or all bad and I’m very grateful for the positives. I really am, but some endings are so rotten, so vile, they permanently taint any previous nicer moments. And, the worst part is that these types of messy and ugly situations shake a person's confidence. They really are awful and can so easily be avoided. In some cases, though, cutting ties completely is best for everyone involved.

In a strange way, my fear and past hatred of running don't cloud my ability to see that way deep down inside, I still love it. It's like a friend or relationship with many ups and downs. Things will never be the same again regarding my former place of employment, but at least I'm not alone... in more ways than one if you catch my drift. The good news is that life has a funny way of working out if you can be open to it. I'm still learning.

I start my new job training tomorrow. I'm nervous and excited. I haven't felt this way since I was preparing for a big race. I'm so grateful to the people who supported me through this experience. Thank you doesn't seem like enough.

Kara Goucher's The Longest Race

2023-03-25T13:25:00.031-07:00

I recently finished reading Kara Goucher's new book The Longest Race. Setting aside the more shocking details described in the book for a quick moment, I was touched by the story she told about her family, the unconditional love they share, and the support they continually provide for each other.

If one thing stands out, it's that Kara is tough, not just as an athlete but as a survivor. She mentions struggling to find her voice at times, especially after her coach, Alberto Salazar, touched her inappropriately and ultimately sexually assaulted her while giving her a massage, but she eventually did find and use her voice in the best ways possible.

Many people, especially women in situations involving older men, can relate to being confused, scared, and unsure of what to do in a moment when something doesn't feel right. During traumatic events, humans don't always know how to process what's happening and might use disassociation or even try to normalize the situation as a way to cope. We question whether or not our experience is accurate, if it happened at all, or if it happened exactly the way we remember.

I'm reading Catch and Kill by Ronan Farrow, the story that helped uncover Harvey Weinstein’s abusive escapades in Hollywood, and the author stresses that it's not uncommon for women to be intimidated with methods of gaslighting or worse after a man in a position of power takes advantage. Sometimes it doesn't take threats, and the fear of reaching out for help or even verbalizing what happened comes from within. We are products of a society that doesn't encourage victims expressing themselves, and sometimes when those who have been abused do come forward, there can be harsh consequences.

There's so much shame associated with sexual assault, and quite often, judgment is misplaced to the point where the victim feels guilty. In the end, Kara, despite facing various threats and lawsuits over the years, stood her ground and told her story, one that is bound to help others in similar situations find the courage to speak up.

It's encouraging to see the support Kara is receiving after coming forward and exposing the underbelly of our corrupt sport. That underside is not pretty. Today's female athletes are a new kind of pioneer in the running community, true heroines of the sport. No longer are they trying to prove that women can run (they have already demonstrated this); they are fighting for equal or better salaries, a better environment, and a healthier future for younger girls moving up the ranks.

In 2017, Alysia Montano brought attention to the difficulty of competing as an elite female athlete when she showed up for the 800 at the USATF Outdoor Championship and ran while she was not just pregnant but a very noticeable 34 weeks pregnant. It was a standout moment when people were slapped with the reality that something needed to change. Had she not toed the line, her Nike contract and, as a result, her income, would have been suspended. This was a turning point. Just as much of the world was beginning to accept that women shouldn't be forced to choose between their careers and becoming a mother, we learned that this applies to being a professional athlete, too.

Kara wasn’t alone in facing similar situations when she was injured or recovering from giving birth. In her case, she was even pressured to prepare for a race shortly after her son, who was an infant at the time, had been operated on and was still in the hospital. The situation eventually pushed the new mother to leave his side in an effort to restart her salary that had been suspended because she was, in Nike terms, "absent from the competition" due to her "medical condition" i.e. being pregnant. Fortunately, her husband, Adam, was there to take care of their son, but it doesn't take away the heartbreak of a mother being forced to make such a painful choice.

Because Kara's book describes so many obstacles she had to overcome, it's easy to forget what a decorated and outstanding athlete she truly is, and because of her many accomplishments, it's easy to forget how young she was when she was running so well. Running isn't as extreme as gymnastics when it comes to youngsters being on top, but kids just out of high school, or newly in or just out of college often compete on an international stage.

Kara started doing well in running when she was just a child, and by the time she was in college, she was a champion several times over. Her list of personal bests and wins is impressive, jaw-dropping, even. She comes across as down-to-earth, self-reflective, compassionate, and at times a little bit insecure in her book, and she doesn't boast about the many accomplishments she achieved. Any wins that are mentioned are stated in a matter-of-fact way, but there's no doubt about how hard she worked for her goals. I've always admired Kara as both an athlete and a person, and reading her book only made that admiration stronger.

One other issue Kara addressed but not deeply is her troubled relationship with food. She didn't go into tremendous detail, but it sounds a lot like what Lorraine Moller experienced, dancing on the edge of an eating disorder without falling completely into the abyss. Such is the case with many athletes. I was glad to see her bring it up, though, and she acknowledged that forming healthier eating habits wasn't as simple as eating a fucking Dorito. In fact, when she ate a Dorito that her husband encouraged her to consume while they were waiting to get dinner, it made her uncomfortable, even if it was the best choice for her hungry body at the time. It was good to see that she didn't discount the very real emotional aspect of these illnesses or imply that simply eating is an easy fix.

As I moved through Kara's book, I spent a lot of time reading between the lines and speculating about drug use, not just in professional running but in the sport itself, and how many coaches and their athletes are guilty of outright doping violations or use more subtle forms of cheating, thyroid medications or asthma inhalers, for example. It would be almost impossible not to speculate given what she implied and outright stated. I have questions that went unanswered and may never be addressed.

It's so easy to find ways to get an unfair edge these days, and so many results seem incredibly far-fetched, right down to those found at the high school level. I suspect and have said it before that I think most people at the elite level are, at minimum, using methods that aren't kosher, and I'm 100 percent sure these questionable practices ooze into the trail and ultra-running scene.

What does it all mean now that Nike has once again been exposed as a shitty company that takes advantage of its athletes, supports dopers, and protects abusive coaches? Probably not as much as everyone had hoped in terms of overall change, but that doesn't discount Kara's efforts as well as those who really are working to try to change the running environment. People, even those who claim to support Kara, will still get excited about wearing shoes with a swoosh. On the other hand, already, thanks in large part to Kara, one less abusive coach is able to inflict harm on other athletes.

I think chipping away at megacorporations and bringing to light their ugly, dark side (and Nike's nadir is exceptionally grotesque) can eventually generate small changes that may, in turn, lead to larger ones.

Regarding people who are working toward the betterment of the athletic community, I don't include individuals who are simply trying to be seen and boast about being advocates; I'm talking about those who have taken actual steps, shared heartfelt personal stories (not ones that fit a narrative), and have been honest and continue to be upfront about who they are. Even those who are not at an elite level but get out there and encourage others to do the same can be incredibly inspirational and good for the sport.

Both Kara and Lorraine Moller did a really great job of bringing their books to a nice conclusion. Each one had a way of coming full circle. Kara brings the reader back to her message of the love and support she received from friends, family, and fans alike. There are a lot of people in her corner, but a small coterie of individuals close to her really stepped up to back her through her hardest moments.

One of the reasons I admire Kara so much is her ability to adapt and change. Both she and Lorraine have this skill in common, and I'm not sure people outside the running community can understand how difficult this can be for some of us. I'll save my more involved thoughts about identity and being a runner for a separate post.

In conclusion, The Longest Race is an easy-to-read book that's hard to put down, especially if you happen to like and look up to the author. As much as it's Kara's story about her career as a runner, it's about addressing a deeply flawed system that allows athletes, especially women, to be abused. Thank goodness Kara came out the other side of all of this and can continue to feel the love and support she deserves.

In other more personal news, I'm not going to say much about why I'm no longer employed where I was recently and for many, many years. My job was something I rarely discussed, and I plan to keep it that way. Unlike a lot of people, it seems, I'm not vindictive or malicious so will hold my tongue, even though I think it would do me good to write about it. Suffice to say that I finally expressed my needs and attempted to set some boundaries going into a meeting, and the response was about the biggest fuck you I have ever experienced from any employer, ever.

What's that saying, though? When a door smacks you hard on the ass on your way out, a window opens? Something like that. I'm pretty sure everything worked out for the best.

I don't remember where I saw the quote below, but I do like it. I'm not into wishing others any ill will, but sometimes I hope there's a little poetic justice in the world. The best revenge, though, is being able to let all the grisly shit go and move the fuck on without looking back.

"Karma is a bitch? Oh no, honey....Karma is a classy wise elder who will calmly sit you down and serve you a tea you later realize was laced with the same poison you served others for years."

Expect The Predictable

2023-01-19T12:58:00.037-08:00

Back in 2020, Lindsay Crouse tweeted and apparently later deleted a comment about the popular miniseries The Queen's Gambit, claiming that the actress who plays the lead role, Anya Taylor-Joy, got the part because she's pretty. There's no doubt the actress is beautiful, but she's also very talented. In fact, as a young actress, she won the Trophee Chopard in 2017. Anya started acting in 2013 with her breakthrough role occurring in 2015 in the film The Witch, one of the more underrated movies of our time. It's best to watch this one with subtitles since the language is not authentic even though it's a well-done period piece and the accents are thick. Before landing the role of Beth Harmon, a fictional character loosely based on Bobby Fischer in the Queen's Gambit, she played Emma Woodhouse in Emma, Casey Cooke in Split, and Allie in Marrowbone, just to name a few of her standout roles.

Anyone who looks at Anya as just a pretty face hasn't watched her act. There's nothing wrong with being pretty and being able to do a job. Crouse seemed to be upset that someone with above-average looks, which are subjective anyway, and who's also talented got the role, and implied that the character would have been better portrayed by someone plain-looking. I actually don't mind looking at beautiful people or plain people on the screen and don't feel the need to judge either based on appearances. Filmmaking is an art, though, and fictional characters can look however casting directors want: ugly, cute, scary, or anything in between.

It's funny that someone who's known for demanding inclusion, even to the point of discriminating against biological women, is angry and wants to exclude good-looking actresses for certain roles in favor of those who are not, but, in addition to that being unfair, I have a question. Who decides? If not the casting directors, who gets to dictate which actresses are frumpy enough for Crouse's approval?

More and more, I see a trend of people wanting to police language, control conversations, and manage how people react and respond. It doesn’t matter the political party, censorship is in fashion. Online, it can be more subtle than a group publicly demanding what books are banned and which are not, which speakers are allowed to take the mic at events and who should be silenced, and which individuals should be canceled when they step out of line. In fact, I received an online scolding by Lauren Fleshman the other day when I voiced an opinion based on a pull quote from an article in Women's Running Magazine and was confronted, quite smugly, about my response, how wrong it was of me to make a comment about eating disorders based on the quote I read.

Instead of focusing on the topic or defending a position, those who don't really want a conversation but want to be seen as right resort to condescending jabs. In some cases, people will shift the focus in an effort to control any possible dialogue. Apparently, I'm supposed to read a person's entire repertoire, especially if she's selling a product, before making comments and shouldn't rely on an interview-style article relating to the work. Keep this in mind any time you feel compelled to comment on anything written in a publication.

I actually stand by my comments and have always been consistent when it comes to eating disorders not being a choice, as Fleshman suggests, intentionally or not, in the write-up. This isn't the first time she has done so or has at least implied people have control over their illnesses. These are very complex disorders, and those who suffer are affected by genetics, environmental factors, brain chemistry, social pressures, comorbidity, and upbringing. Any suggestion of a mental illness being a choice should be addressed.

If Lauren was misquoted or wasn't clear in her statement, why not simply correct it or clarify the position instead of just talking down to someone? I have called out individuals who present inaccurate information before. In this case, I can't say I would trust anyone who would agree to be interviewed for a weight-loss article full of mixed messages and bad advice after presenting herself as an eating disorder recovery advocate, but I'll try to give the interviewee the benefit of the doubt and consider that maybe she wasn't fully aware of how the content in this other article would be presented.

Regarding the piece on weight loss, I should add that it's not that dieting is a taboo topic per see, but when you see such cringeworthy and potentially triggering ideas about “flat-belly” breakfasts and advice about skipping post-workout snacks that have been shown to improve recovery, you can immediately determine that this is a piece that will likely cause more harm than good. Kevin Beck recently addressed the juxtaposition of this very article with another one by Runner's World. Women's Running has made similar missteps in publishing potentially damaging articles about weight loss followed by those that encourage eating intuitively.

That wasn't the only tsk tsk I got from Fleshman, though. I didn't notice it initially, but earlier and quite out of the blue, she responded to a tweet of mine that linked to a blog post by Kevin Beck. Her accusation that Kevin "attacks" women with "threats and abuse" is an outright lie that she absolutely cannot back up with any evidence, none. I'm surprised she hasn't deleted the tweet yet. It's definitely in violation of Twitter's TOS and is a bad look for someone who is promoting a newly written book.

My response caused her to block me, though. God forbid she engage in a conversation she initiated simply because she doesn't like my reaction to her lies. I have already addressed my feelings toward her, and her recent behavior has only solidified my thoughts about the kind of individual she is, not a very gracious one.

I'm sure the two of us can agree on quite a lot of things including but not limited to her apparent support of fairness over inclusion* regarding transgender athletes that Amby Burfoot pointed out, the desire to see a healthier environment for women and girls in sport, and prevention and, I assume, treatment for those suffering from eating disorders, but, regarding the latter, I don't think just anyone can be a good recovery advocate.

There is an art to speaking about this issue. It takes practice and an understanding of these kinds of illnesses, either by lived experience or by education, to be able to address an audience, online or in person, without inflicting more harm, even if it's unintentional. Too many people step into the role of advocate and give out incorrect information. I always admire Rachael Steil for her ability to discuss eating disorders in a safe, effective manner.

As far as my upsetting online interaction with Fleshman goes, the way I view it is that someone who lies in order to attempt to manipulate another loses credibility. That's a given. I already had my issues with her before she decided to supervise my tweets and lie like she did. Any remaining respect I might have had for her as a person is pretty much gone. I have a lot of respect for her as an athlete and as someone who attended Stanford (I turned down a scholarship there in favor of attending BYU and don't regret it,) but I can't bring myself to support anyone who so carelessly tosses out false accusations, especially against my best friend.

On that note, I have to clarify that I don't always agree with what Kevin writes. He can be callous in his approach, but he doesn't ever lie. That I admire. I don't condone his sometimes-abrasive descriptions of people, but if you look at some of the brilliant writers of the past, H. L. Mencken, Mark Twain, Charles Dickins, etc. he's in good company.

Originally, I was going to write about the easily agitated people who get offended at the term girl when used in place of woman, but I ended up adding a few extra thoughts on my way to the topic. However, since Fleshman is among these individuals, there is a link to what I previously wrote. In order to tie things up more quickly here, I will briefly jot down my thoughts knowing there's a lot of information on this subject already out there if people are interested.

A few years ago, Matthew Smith wrote a brief article that included statistics showing younger individuals in England tend to look at "girl" as a more patronizing or sexually suggestive --- which seems weird considering "girl" is, according to those same easily offended individuals, a child -- than older individuals. The actual full definition of “girl” is the following, and keep in mind that young is subjective and often relative:

/ (ɡɜːl) / noun. a female child from birth to young womanhood. a young unmarried woman; lass; maid. informal a sweetheart or girlfriend.

I'm sure there are weirdos who use "girl" as a pejorative, but most normal functioning individuals can tell the difference between someone who's intentionally trying to be disrespectful when calling a woman a girl and someone who's merely using a familiar term. Same with "guys" as in, "Hey guys! Let's go to a party," when referring to a group of friends consisting of both men and women or even just women. More often than not, people don't mean any harm when using these terms, and it's unproductive to assume people who use these words are doing so in order to put anyone down.

If you find yourself getting upset over other people's use of generally non-controversial words, maybe consider the broader definitions. You don't really see men getting their panties in a bunch when they're referred to as boys. If you think some of the same adult women who claim to be offended haven't at some point said, "I'm going for drinks with the girls" or something similar, you would most likely be mistaken.

As I caution others to calm the fuck down over the little things, I remind myself to do the same. I'm overly sensitive, so minor incidents can be hugely upsetting to me. My OCD brain spins these incidents around and around to the point of disrupting my emotional well-being. It's a matter of putting things in perspective, but usually, after a dose of blogging since running isn't much of an option these days, I end up feeling at least a little better. I hope others can find whatever it is that helps ease the discomfort that often comes with being human.

*ETA: It looks like I may have been mistaken about Fleshman’s stance on transgender athletes, but a lot of people were as confused as I was about it. In this interview, she seems to suggest inclusion over fairness while acknowledging biological differences, though it's a wishy-washy comment that could be taken either way: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/01/10/1147816860/sports-world-still-built-for-men-elite-runner-wants-to-change-that ...but then she came out with this absolute mess, which sort of clarifies her stance that inclusion is better but also that girls go through different changes than boys during puberty.

Allegations of Misconduct at CU

2022-11-19T17:08:00.040-08:00

If you've read "Running With The Buffaloes," you probably won't be surprised at the allegations of misconduct related to CU Boulder's cross-country program. I've never written much about the team because I was part of the organization well before the "legendary" coach Wetmore took the reins. It was also a dark time for me back then. Though the environment wasn't healthy for me and several other women on the varsity team, coach Quiller was a nice guy and never pestered me about my weight or body composition. He seemed to be aware of the dangers of being too thin. Several transfers were coming from programs that were downright abusive, so in comparison, things were pretty nice at CU.

Aside from an assistant coach who ran the 800 and who was very clearly on some kind of performance enhancer, there was nothing out of the ordinary going on that I was aware of, just too many miles prescribed and too much speedwork for my body. I wasn't alone there.

Coming from an extremely safe, clean, honest, and healthy BUY setting and working with one of the most sensible coaches on the planet, CU's methods at the time struck me as far from perfect but not terribly damaging. Nothing in the article about the ongoing investigation points to anything outright evil either. Still, I have my reasons to suspect there's more to the story than a former athlete upset about having her body composition tested, and, as one individual pointed out on Twitter, perhaps the reason why more people didn't balk at the methods described in "Running With The Buffaloes" is because it's a story about men and that kind of severe training was more accepted and not seen as anything all that unusual at the time. Maybe it should have been a red flag for more people, and it was for at least some of us. But things are very different now. We recognize and can define wrongdoing more quickly and accurately.

Training or overtraining aside, weight and body composition can provide a coach with valuable information. When I was at BYU, our coach weighed us, but the team setting was probably one of the healthiest running environments I had ever experienced. It's not so much that anyone in a position of authority gathers this kind of information; it's more how he or she goes about it and also what he or she does with that information.

Part of the reason why I have avoided sharing my suspicions about the darker side of the CU cross-country program that consistently produces successful runners is because all that I know about Wetmore and his training methods is hearsay. I know at least one person who was coached by him before he was the head coach at CU, and I know a few people who filled the role of assistant or volunteer coach while he was there. One of these ladies told me that Wetmore had all of his female athletes go on the pill. I thought it was weird, but she insisted it was to help prevent bone loss in runners who were "naturally" thin. But shouldn't going on birth control be a decision between a woman and her gynecologist, not a running coach? And all of them? Really? Again, it all seemed strange to me.

I also know other coaches who trained former CU athletes who ran under Wetmore's guidance. In fact, when I was writing my memoir, I interviewed a coach who was working with two CU alums who were too afraid to talk to me about their experiences there, even though I assured them that I would protect their anonymity. No go. Whatever trauma they experienced and privately confessed to their new coach would stay hidden from the rest of the world, but it was enough for me to wonder about his coaching style. And knowing some of the unsavory comments he said to at least one of his former athletes is enough for me to know that whatever facade he presents to the world probably isn't the full picture. Most likely, he's private and avoids interviews and the spotlight for a reason, and it's not because he's shy.

Shortly after the article about the investigation was published, I noticed that Joe Klecker posted on Twitter about his experience at CU under Wetmore. He suggested it was fine, nothing to see here, folks! Because he didn't experience anything that upset him and he was referred to a dietitian and other professionals rather than discuss weight or mental health with his coach, which is how it should be, he seems to imply that his experience can serve as a standard for everyone else. People respond differently to different types of stress, and what's not upsetting for one person might be unbearable for another. That's why a good coach takes into consideration individualistic experience and aims to provide a safe environment for everyone.

Another person on Twitter suggested that coaches should be able to tell who has an eating disorder, which is absolutely ridiculous. More often than not, you can't tell who has an eating disorder or who might develop one. Don't play guessing games when it comes the mental health of individuals.

What both posters are missing is that anyone at any given time can be susceptible to developing an eating disorder or can be dealing with a mental health issue. Just because one person's experience seems OK, it doesn't mean that the program overall isn't toxic, and just because one person found the environment unhealthy, it doesn't mean it's a bad program overall. That's why it's important to conduct an investigation and uncover patterns that can help determine what, if anything, needs to be addressed.

Regarding mental health in the running community, things have definitely changed over the years, and, fortunately, those in positions of authority are starting to become more aware of the issues that plague so many runners, especially when it comes to eating disorders.

In the 80s, there were plenty of unhealthy college running programs, probably more unhealthy ones than not, and it was mostly accepted that people, primarily coaches, would talk about weight and the importance of maintaining a certain physique in order to perform well. Over time, though, it became apparent that thin doesn't always mean faster and most definitely does not mean healthier. In other words, the more disaster struck young athletes, the more coaches learned that those who are too thin or end up engaging in other unhealthy behaviors in an attempt to control weight often end up experiencing more injuries and can't maintain health. It's better to have a little extra muscle mass or even fat than risk dieting to the point of not being able to run well or at all.

Of course, there are other ways for athletes to remain extremely thin while engaging in demanding, consistent training, but I'll stick to the topic at hand here and save additional speculation for another time.

Despite some programs softening their "don't get fat" stance, plenty of coaches still foster unhealthy athletic habits and contribute to an atmosphere that encourages eating disorders. Because the investigation is ongoing, we don't know the details of what the athletes at CU believe to be toxic conditions, but one of the more important messages in the Runner's World article states:

But body composition testing can have harmful effects on collegiate athletes when not conducted responsibly. Testing frequently, conveying results without appropriate sensitivity, or aiming to manipulate these numbers can trigger disordered eating and eating disorders, and contribute to a condition called relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S), a mismatch between energy intake and expenditure that can lead to menstrual irregularities, weak bones, and other injuries and long-term health problems.

What's concerning is that there are others calling the investigation a witch hunt. It's hard to imagine that when at least five individuals find certain methods toxic there isn't something controversial going on behind the scenes. The idea that there were comparisons of body composition between current and former teams suggests that methods were questionable at minimum. Because of my history of eating disorders and also knowing some of the snide comments Wetmore has said to one former athlete, I might be assuming the worst, but I also know that, despite improvements, there aren't enough checks on programs. There also aren't sufficient mandatory training programs or evaluations for coaches. As one local professional coach put it, "Certification for coaches is a joke. Pretty much anyone can become certified."

With the investigation, it's important to listen to both sides and try to encourage more awareness around safer coaching methods. One of the best ideas is to have athletes work with registered dietitians and mental health professionals. It takes a village, so to speak, to raise a healthy athlete. Because eating disorders are so prevalent in runners, coaches really need to work on their approach with athletes. Even if only one person on the team is more sensitive, a coach should be cautious with how he or she addresses everyone.

This is a little bit rushed and probably contains grammatical errors, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there immediately in response to the article, something I rarely do anymore. It will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation, and I hope some former CU athletes who have been successful offer their insights. Then again, most people already know that those who are running at the top are often treated differently than those who aren't winning races. Like it or not, coaches are human and fallible.

Crickets

2022-10-25T22:46:00.027-07:00

At the risk of repeating myself regarding the issue of transgender women competing in women's sports categories, I'm going to go ahead and address the topic again because I see a trend in the running community, one that's telling. With both older studies and new research emerging that show transgender athletes maintain a physical advantage even after hormone therapy, those who were previously the loudest when bringing up the subject and also the most hypocritical of others are suddenly awfully quiet. Unlike simple surveys or polls, one consisting of only of eight individuals, that were passed as research previously, the studies put out by several scientists including Dr. Emma Hilton that have addressed this matter more recently are much more formal.

From Erin Strout who insisted the research on fairness is still developing without offering any actual research to David Roche who tweeted but later deleted "Trans women are women" to Alison Wade who cheers whenever a DSD or trans athlete displaces a female athlete to Lindsay Crouse who lied about poll numbers related to what the general population would like to see happen, all have gone radio silent.

From Dr. Emma Hilton: graph showing changes in muscle strength in transgender women pre- and post-testosterone suppression vs. women

In 2021, when Amby Burfoot wrote, "All clear-thinking individuals believe that transgender women and men should receive the same social, cultural, educational, financial, etc, rights as others. Not all agree about athletic rights," he hit the nail on the head. It's estimated that 73% of Americans believe transgender individuals should be protected from discrimination. Wanting protection for transgender people and wanting fairness in sports can both be true. Regarding women's competition, Burfoot was also correct when he mentioned that there's "plenty of science, event history, and barroom understanding that men are significantly stronger and faster than women." People who have suggested there wasn't enough evidence for ruling bodies to make decisions about excluding transgender women from competing in the women's field had no problem allowing those same agencies to make rules for inclusion, and anyone who disagreed with or even questioned this decision was immediately labeled transphobic, a TERF, or worse. The fact that these insults are so freely tossed around is incredibly upsetting.

The other day, I worked with some repeat clients who live out of state. Their son lives here in Boulder, but the parents and their trans daughter live elsewhere. After assisting them and saying our goodbyes, complete with affectionate hugs and well wishes all around, my co-worker and I talked about how much we enjoy working with them. Sometimes assisting people can be an absolute pleasure, and the warm feelings linger long after the patrons have left. I don't have the same connection to every family, even though I aim to give everyone the best service I possibly can. Some people just make a positive impression. They are the kind of great company that leave a lasting memory. In short, these particular clients mean a lot to me and are more like friends, family even, than customers.

Typically, I prefer to leave my personal life out of these kinds of posts, but after being thrown into the "transphobe" pile because of my desire to see fairness in sport, I want those name-callers to know exactly how insulting their comments are.

I have another close friend who transitioned a long time ago. She was able to marry her girlfriend after laws in her state changed back in 2013. She has been successful in more areas of life than most people can even imagine, from athletics to music to law. When I think of her, I see an incredible human being who's smart, witty, fearless, and incredibly generous, as is her partner. She's someone to be admired for a variety of reasons. We have sent each other care packages, and I consider both of them true friends, much more than social media acquaintances. Obviously, I want the best for them and would fight to make sure they have the same rights as everyone else. The only caveat, and I believe they agree, is that one group's rights should never infringe on anyone else's.

Unfairness is what's happening when women are no longer allowed to have a voice and aren't allowed to retain women's only spaces. Most of us don't have a problem being in gender-neutral spaces or being around transgender individuals, but it's not transphobic for a woman to choose who offers her healthcare or who is allowed or is not allowed to be in intimate settings with her. Transphobia has a specific definition that does not include merely disagreeing, wanting fairness for women in sports, or wanting to retain some women's only spaces. Again, if one group is discriminated against in the process of trying to appease another, a more workable outcome needs to be presented, but simply asking for fairness, safety, comfort, and respect is not transphobic, not at all.

So far, having three categories or three distinct areas for men, women, and transgender individuals seems to be the best solution, including in sports. Men's only spaces and groups that don't place women at a disadvantage have existed for a long time and still do. Those that discriminate versus exclude are generally called out, and appropriate legal action usually follows. This should also be true of women's spaces. We should have the right to create women's only spaces that exclude biological men without specifically discriminating against them.

The basic problem with transgender rights in today's world is extremism. A few aggressive and hostile individuals tend to speak on behalf of or represent everyone in their community. This hostility comes out when anyone suggests caution before permanently surgically altering a young child's body, for example. Suggesting parents slow down before allowing their kids to go under the knife is not the same as denying the child healthcare, but the same people who yell the loudest say that parents don't need a second opinion for major, life-altering surgery. They insist any concern is denying the child.

Basically, if you don't agree 100 percent, you're a bigot. Anyone who thinks, "maybe a second opinion wouldn't be such a bad idea," is again labeled transphobic and lumped together with extremists on the right. Those who suggest gender reassignment surgeries are no different than a teen getting a nose job need to explain why a parent wouldn't want a second opinion in that case, too, just to be safe and sure. A second opinion is standard, but suddenly radicals on the left think it's unnecessary for children who are considering a major, irreversible operation.

All I'm saying is that gender dysphoria is a complex issue, and nobody, especially children, should be rushing into surgery that permanently alters an individual's body before exploring alternative treatments. If that makes me some kind of extremist, so be it. I think transgender minors need more consideration, acceptance, and emotional support before jumping into radical surgery. If surgery is what they prefer after weighing both the pros and cons, then that's a right they should have, but I don't think anyone should ever rush into surgery, especially youngsters.

On this same issue, I wasn't surprised to see Erin Strout publicly claim that Jon Stewart gave a great interview when he confronted Leslie Rutledge, the 56th AG of Arkansas, on gender-affirming care for minors. No matter what you think of the woman's politics or views (I disagree with most of her politics and don't fully agree with her ideas on gender-affirming care or the lack thereof for minors), she should at least be given a chance to speak. Instead, Stewart talks over her and shuts her down before she can finish pretty much any of her sentences. It comes off as misogynistic and bullying. Notice the contrast in the way he allows a man to speak without interruption in this clip. The former is NOT an example of a great interview. In fact, it's a pretty shitty interview overall, a complete disappointment.

I can disagree with most of what Rutledge promotes and can agree with her adversaries when they say that she wasn't well prepared for the interview, but I don't condone the way Stewart addressed her with all his eye-rolling and interruptions. Imagine if someone on the right didn't allow a trans advocate to speak and kept making faces every time she tried to say anything. As much as I dislike some of the things Sam Harris has said recently about censorship, he has always been respectful of the people he interviews, even when he very strongly disagrees with them. That's how a good interview is conducted, not by bullying the opponent, but it shows how the left is as bad as the right when it comes to liking that kind of shit. They don't want a quiet, civil debate; they want to see someone they agree with ganging up on someone else.

Getting back to the topic of sports, there has been a great deal of virtue signaling in running publications in recent years, with unwavering opinions presented as facts followed by silence when new information emerges to counter the journalists' beliefs. As one conservative reporter put it regarding transgender women competing in women's categories, "This isn’t bigotry; it’s science," and he's right. But people like Strout are more concerned with what pronouns we use than with the women and girls who are forced to compete against transgender athletes. With friends like these, eh?

All these so-called supporters of women's running are suddenly silent after suggesting those of us who want fairness for women in sports are on the wrong side of history. Why is that? Most likely because they can no longer hide behind vague statements about "evolving data" or can no longer claim that there "currently isn’t data to support exclusion" after people like Dr. Emma Hilton and Ross Tucker have spoken up and exposed any myths surrounding the debate around natural advantages of transgender women in sports. These professionals specifically address why it's important to demand separate categories for males and females. The silence is unfortunate because journalists who are incapable of admitting to being wrong in the face of scientific evidence on the topic end up doing a huge disservice to readers of publications like Women's Running and Trail Runner Magazine.

Unless you are intentionally ignoring what scientists are presenting, the data are overwhelmingly there when it comes to pointing out the fact that transgender women retain an unfair advantage even after hormone replacement therapy. Even Joanna Harper can't deny what Ross Tucker says with regard to transgender athletes retaining an advantage.

She states, “Trans women who don’t go on to medical treatment before puberty will go through male-typical testosterone levels, a male puberty and all of that that entails greater height, greater musculature, higher hemoglobin levels … more muscle, all of the quote-unquote advantages that men have when it comes to sports,” Her approach thus far has been to point to minor differences such as arm length or a differing dominant side that occur within sex categories and suggest that "meaningful competition" is what she decides is fair, not necessarily what is actually fair. But people have been referencing her for years as if these advantages, which other scientists see as significant, are just fine and, oh, it's also cool that biological women have no say in the matter.

Harper and others may suggest that hormone therapy in transgender women significantly reduces their athletic advantages, but, as Hilton points out, despite a reduced advantage for transgender women in competition, the data still show that transgender women are and remain bigger and stronger than their female competitors, even after three years of hormone therapy. Additionally, many in the science community feel that Harper's initial small collection of anecdotes from 2015 that people reference as a study because it somewhat supports what they want it to is heavily flawed, but, whether she likes it or not, it still shows that there are obvious and significant differences between transgender women and women and also women and men. It's more that Harper deemed these differences between transgender women and women not significant enough. Why can't women just buck up and smile, take it on the chin? So what if competition is unfair and science proves it. Oh hey, that's basically the same stance as Alison Wade of Fast Women.

Image from Kevin Beck

In the end, I truly believe that the majority of people in the world would like to see a workable and fair solution for everyone. We want transgender individuals to be treated fairly and to be protected from any discrimination, but we also don't want to see women get the short end of the stick like they have so often throughout history.

Going Deep

2022-10-12T17:43:00.020-07:00

There has been a valuable and eye-opening movement occurring recently in the running community. It involves professional athletes coming forward and sharing their stories and struggles with eating disorders, body dysmorphia, OCD, and mental illness. Finally, the media and company sponsors are allowing individuals to dive deeper into the causes and factors that contribute to these types of illnesses instead of republishing the same boring "help" manual that's never insightful or actually helpful.

Unlike the many sources that have attempted and failed to offer any kind of deep insight into recovery, the videos and article below are among the first to really hit the nail on the head when it comes to offering a glimpse into the struggle of these kinds of disorders. Too often, the focus is on the tie between athletics and weight when, in fact, eating disorders a far more complex than an individual simply wanting to stay lean in order to perform well. Sometimes the two are completely unrelated, in fact. In one of the most honest and informative interviews on the topic, Tim Tollefson gets to the heart of many of these disorders when he says, " I've spent a lifetime hating myself for what I'm not instead of being thankful for what I am."

The problem with authors, podcasters, and self-proclaimed professionals who address the topic is that they typically discount the deeper issues in favor of offering superficial advice, and this advice is nearly always focused on the symptoms of the illnesses rather than the core issues.

I was so angry to see articles in Trail Runner that suggest "Just eat enough!" or "Eat a fucking Dorito!" as if solving a life-threatening illness or disordered eating patterns comes down to forcing yourself to eat. It's such a childish, unhelpful approach, a slap in the face of those of us who struggle. That's why the messages that people like Tim, Molly, Kaci, and Allie are sharing are so incredibly important. In a sea of published information that barely scratches the surface, these athletes and select journalists and producers are willing to dive deep into a place of vulnerability in order to give others a better understanding of what an eating disorder or struggling with mental health is all about.

And exploring disorders and recovery can land a person in a very dark place. Still, hearing someone open up in a relatable way is far more helpful than anyone suggesting I just eat enough. Listening to what Tim went through and his willingness to address his mental health moved me in a way I haven't been in a long, long time. God, how I can relate to the self-hatred and fear of being seen. Some days, it's incredibly difficult to get out the door, and I don't mean for a run, though that can be equally difficult in certain states of mind. I'm sure I'm not alone. In my own life, these fears have only gotten worse despite my semi-firm commitment to stay at least somewhat healthy.

I'm keeping this short because the videos and article below speak for themselves. There's not much to add except to reiterate that our struggles shouldn't cause us shame. Everyone has issues of one kind or another. It's how we address them and how we explore the reasons why we turn to unhealthy behaviors that matter. Without understanding the root causes, our own triggers, and the steps we can take to ease the unease we experience in recovery, we will tend to stay stuck or relapse. Recovery isn't about running well when your life is on the line, and healing doesn't come in a pretty, black-and-white package. Most of us live in the gray with occasional dips back into the black hole of despair, but that doesn’t mean all is lost. There is hope.

Trigger warning for those who are sensitive to eating disorder content and images.

Molly https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a41534525/molly-seidel-struggles-with-mental-health/

Allie https://www.milesplit.com/articles/321497/allie-ostrander-under-pressure-gaining-your-life-back

Kaci https://runningmagazine.ca/trail-running/watch-kaci-lickteig-and-others-open-up-about-disordered-eating/

Tim https://runningmagazine.ca/trail-running/ultrarunner-tim-tollefson-shares-mental-health-challenges-in-new-film/

A Step Behind

2022-10-04T19:29:00.035-07:00

I've mentioned before that this hasn't been the easiest year for me, both physically and emotionally. Due to a cascade of injuries that stemmed mostly from my foot and ended with a big mess in my left hip, I had to take a lot of time away from running, probably the longest amount of time away from "my" sport than I have since I started running, way back when I was just barely a teen. Throughout the extended break, I didn't give up exercising entirely, even when I could hardly walk, though part of me wanted to. I switched to the stationary bike as much as possible, as boring as it can be, and continued doing some Pilates or yoga-type movements. However, I lost inspiration, and my brain ended up in a depression fog. The days and weeks and eventually months of going through the motions bled into each other so much that I lost track of time. Suddenly, almost a year had passed.

For the most part, I didn't feel like doing much, so I watched Netflix, slept, and ate comfort food. More concerning, I lost a bit of weight from what those around me were telling me (I don't own a scale), and a big part of me wanted to check out completely. In the end, I'm not sure if it was simple compulsion that drove me to carry on or if it was the idea that I'd probably feel worse if I did nothing all that was the incentive, but, either way, I kept going, as ugly as it looked and felt at times. Having obligations such as work and an older parent to tend to prevented me from doing anything drastic, that and a fear of death. Experiencing tremendous pain and such extremely limited mobility for so long made me question what it would take for someone like me to overcome my fear and end things. I guess "damn" or "hooray!" for this occasional hope in me that won't be completely squashed; I can't decide which.

As soon as the tears, pulls, and nerve damage started to heal -- one bone fragment is just going to have to stay lodged near the ischial tuberosity from where it was apparently dislodged because there's no sense in digging around in there and disrupting things with surgery when it probably wouldn't solve much -- I started to jog a little. I can't say it feels good -- my body is all lopsided now and hurts -- but in a way, it has been nice to move outdoors again. It's embarrassing and terrible that jogging anything under an 11-minute mile feels challenging and awkward.

I have no idea how I ever managed to run 7 to 7:30 a mile just a few years ago in a race, let alone 5:40 pace in races at one time in my life. From my shuffling perspective, those faster paces seem impossible. I try not to get too down on myself, but holy shit it's difficult because an average harder pace of between 9:40 -10:22 when it feels like a sprint, even if it's on a hilly course, is, in reality, fucking SLOW. At this point, though, I can't seem to trust my body. I don't want to break it, so I'm dragging myself around slowly, even on the downhills. It's all very weird. I must look like Frankenstein shuffling around on the streets, only with quicker arm movements. Oh, and because of the nerve issues, I can't seem to run trails unless they're basically gravel roads, nothing technical at all. I'd just trip and probably fall.

In all of life lately, I feel like I'm a step behind. Before I can fully gather my thoughts on a topic to blog about, the world has already moved on. Part of my reasons for delaying a more timely response is the way people react. On social media and elsewhere, it appears as though individuals are incapable of reading opinions without immediately jumping to conclusions, drawing lines in the sand, and lecturing from high horses and soap boxes alike. Either you're on one side, or you're on the other. There's nothing in between. This is the case with everything from the Amber Heard vs. Johnny Depp trial to climate change. It's intimidating to jump into any conversations.

When I initially read about the terrible and tragic case of Eliza Fletcher, a teacher who was abducted and murdered while she was out for a run one early morning in Memphis, I found most people to be sensitive as they offered condolences to her family and friends. Very quickly, though, two groups formed, one that blamed the teacher for running early in the morning, and the other that insisted women's safety shouldn't be discussed because the problem is the criminal. Considering there were about 1.3 million violent crimes and 24,576 homicides in the United States in 2020, I'm pretty sure criminals aren't going to suddenly be rehabilitated to the point where nobody has to worry. I understand the sentiment; it wasn't her fault, but scolding people who offer ideas on safety isn't going to solve anything. Problem-solving is never the goal of loud complainers, though.

The Crime Junkie podcast has a huge following, and nobody ever claims that their message, Be Weird, Be Rude, Stay Alive, is victim blaming. It's simply advice in a world with a lot of unhinged people living in it. While there were a few people who accuse Eliza and others like her of wrongdoing for running alone in the early morning, something she did regularly, most were doing no such thing. I believe there's a way to discuss how to be safe when running without criticizing anyone's running habits. Though it's not quite the same thing, people offer advice about being careful when it comes to driving, being out in nature where there are wild animals, or any number of other situations where there are risks. It's not meant to be a slam on what anyone does. These cautions come from concern and a desire to be of help, especially after such a terrible incident.

From what I understand, Eliza took precautions by running familiar routes. Her cell phone and water bottle were found in the area where she was abducted, so it's not like she was completely reckless. I've gone on far more dangerous adventures and simply got lucky. Throughout high school and college, I would dive up to the higher mountains and run solo for a couple of hours, no water, no phone (back then, we didn't have portable ones), only a spare long-sleeved t-shirt wrapped around my waist, and I wouldn't tell anyone exactly where I was headed. Occasionally, I would jokingly tell my roommates or my mom that I was going running in the mountains and to call the authorities if I wasn't back by 3 p.m. Looking back, I realize how foolish this was and how lucky I am that nothing happened. So much of what happens in life comes down to chance.

On an unrelated note, I'm surprised how often publications like Trail Runner publish nutrition advice written by coaches or authors who are completely unqualified to guide anyone on diet. The only people who should be handing out actual dietary advice, especially to athletes who are more prone to developing eating disorders, are physicians (and not random ones, your own physician) and registered dietitians. Articles like this one that suggest athletes just wing it and eat whatever they want discount the dangers of not getting enough of the right nutrients for training. While the article cautions against going to extremes, it's all very vague, and the overall message is "just eat enough," similar to the "Just eat a fucking Dorito" concept in a previous article about eating disorders. For those who struggle, it is not that simple, and I'm sick of anyone suggesting it is.

What's worse is seeing people who claim to have struggled constantly talking about all the junk food they eat. I addressed a similar issue recently when I commented on people who show images of themselves pretending to eat pasta or other foods that, for whatever reason, are often classified as fear, cheat, or junk foods. If it's true that you scarf down loads of foods that are not rich in nutrients, fine, nobody should judge you for it, but also, nobody needs to see or hear about it. You do you. Enjoy your food and stop inflicting your neuroses or habits on others.

Mostly, stop being a fraud. I always come back to the idea that it's great to see healthy or recovering individuals share fun food moments, an accomplishment around food, a creative recipe, or a pretty meal at a restaurant. What I don't give a shit about is someone claiming to eat tons of whatever food and isn't that cute! presented as a fucking article. It’s not, and it’s not informative or interesting.

While I fully agree that food should be enjoyed and that there are no real "bad" or "good" foods, failing to get enough protein or nutrient-dense foods in your diet can lead to undernourishment. I know because this happened to me when I was attempting to recover and eating a diet far too heavy in sweets. I suffered for it and felt awful. By the way, I intentionally linked to a Trail Runner article written by Maria Dalzot, M.S., R.D., C.D.N., someone more than qualified to address the nutritional needs of athletes.

The saying, "Eat enough, always. Eat too much, sometimes. Eat too little, never." is flawed on many levels. Define "too much" or even "not enough." Too much, according to whom? Given how difficult it is for many of us who struggle or have struggled with eating issues to judge quantity, fullness, and serving sizes, these kinds of cutesy sayings are meaningless. In the throes of my own illness, I remember always thinking I ate "too much" after every meal. Also, there are times when eating too little is required, before surgery, for example. My friend couldn't eat before presentations because she was so nervous that she might throw up. In that case, it was healthier for her to eat too little and then make sure she got enough nutrients sometime after the presentation. It's so important to not get caught up in anyone else's rules around diet. Your diet should be individualized.

The following is about as vague a statement as one can write.

My take: people should eat foods that they enjoy to fuel the work they are doing in order to find their personal definition of “strong,” whatever that means for them.

This is about as helpful as saying, "Eat whatever and be the way you want, whatever that means to you." No shit. But then don't say that and then pretend like this wasn't a previous caution by the same author, “Eating enough won’t prevent every case of training-overload/OTS."

Social media and, apparently, running magazines are terrible places to look for guidance on diet and training. I mentioned this in my last post. Many of the ones trying to appear ever so fun-loving while doling out advice are often just publicizing an underlying and unhealthy fixation on food and body. It is not helpful at all. It's contradictory that Trail Runner links to a more sensible article on diet within this failed attempt at professionalism. It makes me angry. Why publish something so off the mark when there are clearly better writers for the job? It's potentially dangerous, too. People who struggle with eating and body image issues can be very sensitive and influenced by what others suggest, as can nearly anyone on the Internet. As a blog post, it's a different story, but presenting articles as if they are written by people who know what they are talking about when they clearly don't is careless.

It gets worse, too. In the passage below, there's no clear explanation about why cholesterol can be higher in those who have or have had eating disorders. And this incorrectly implies that it's fine for everyone to have a shitty diet as long as you eat enough. This is flat-out dangerous. How many is "many" when it comes to athletes who eat what they love, and do they record their dietary intake for the author, their coach? How does one know they eat what they love and don't also eat what they know they should for optimal performance? I'm assuming the author's observations don't count as an actual study, so why bring anything up as if it's fact anyway?

For a variety of reasons including genetics, hormone levels, exercise patterns, and the way the body absorbs fats and nutrients while in a state of starvation or the binge-purge cycle, people with either anorexia or bulimia can, indeed, have high cholesterol. So can anybody else. And diet can be a very important factor when it comes to cholesterol levels whether or not you run a lot. It's not accurate to suggest that runners and athletes can eat anything they want and have low cholesterol.

My co-coach Megan and I have seen thousands of pages of blood work for athletes over the years. Whenever a high cholesterol reading comes back, we ask for the athlete to talk to the doctor. And the most common time we see that flag for athletes has nothing to do with cheeseburgers–in fact, many of the athletes eating whatever they love have the most optimal blood work of all. Instead, those high readings are often for athletes with a history of eating disorders

Lastly, a few friends pointed out this gem from the same Trail Runner article: Every physical accomplishment starts as a dream. But the biggest, longest-term dream can only become a reality because of a satisfied stomach.

No. Dreams don't become reality because of a satisfied stomach. That's like saying I won Pikes (my big dream) because I drank enough fluid. Absolutely, one needs adequate nutrition in order to achieve one's goals, but fueling the body isn't the reason a dream becomes reality. Who the fuck edits these pieces?

Running Magazines And Diet Culture

2022-09-21T08:28:00.012-07:00

The last blog post I wrote started one way and veered in a completely different direction than I had intended. I had one subject in mind initially and, instead, switched course to focus on something else. Kill off your little darlings is good advice I didn't follow. My first topic had nothing to do with running, but it's something that has been gnawing at me for a while now. It actually ties back to what I mentioned, that certain people in a given group where I live are presenting themselves as something they're not. I'm not quite sure how to tackle the subject matter yet, so I'll have to save it for another post.

Recently, I've spent some time criticizing running publications. In fact, the other day I called out Women's Running on Twitter for once again promoting weight loss by restricting food intake after just telling readers to eat intuitively. Don't worry about calories! It's not that weight loss is necessarily a bad thing; it's that these types of articles don't offer any guidelines or cautions about who "should" and who should not be losing weight, and there's no sensible suggestion to speak to your doctor about a weight-loss plan before considering one. These types of rags will promote nearly anything to get more readership, I mean money.

Women's Running pretends to be concerned about the health and mental health of female athletes, but the reality is that its writers contradict themselves all the time. For example, despite using someone coached by a man as a standard of health after continually pushing the idea that women make better coaches for female athletes, which hasn't actually been proven, the publication's overall stance seems to be that we need more female coaches in order for women to be successful and remain safe and healthy. Note that being a good role model in this case is not the same thing as being an effective coach. Forget all the examples of successful, healthy female athletes coached by men or any cases of abusive female coaches. I've mentioned this before. Women are no better.

Being a good coach isn't related to sex. Both men and women can be good coaches for female athletes, and both can be terrible at their jobs. On social media, writers associated with Women's Running have spent a lot of time addressing the topic of male coaches who create unhealthy environments that potentially encourage women to have eating disorders, but then they push garbage about weight loss without any disclaimers or cautions. In the same breath, they suggest being plus-sized isn't unhealthy and then suggest weight-loss tips. What does it say when they promote dieting (trigger warning because of all the numbers) and restricting intake after claiming being heavier is healthy?

Women have always had to walk a fine line in order to be accepted in society. Whether it's their weight, self-expression, or overall beliefs, any extreme quickly draws scorn, and scorn often comes anyway, even to those who appear to fall in line. This isn't a suggestion that women should be beyond reproach, though. Women cause harm, too, and those who are liars, abusive, grifters, careless, or manipulative should be called out.

The Believe in Me film that was released on Amazon Prime recently addresses toxic environments that some athletes have endured. Alison Wade, founder of Fast Women, when she discovered that it was a female coach who was in charge at TCU when allegations of an unhealthy environment for runners there arose responded by immediately holding men responsible for any misconduct perpetuated by a woman. People who blame others for causing eating disorders don't understand the complexity of the illness, but blaming a man for an unhealthy situation a woman created is shameful. Toxic environments can contribute to the development of the disorders, but it takes more than stressors in the environment for someone to end up with one. If a female coach is contributing to an unhealthy setting, though, by all means, hold her accountable.

Trail Runner is no better when it comes to the mixed messages they send around weight and diet, though more and more, they have avoided directly suggesting runners lose weight. Still, writers there have told us that excess weight is a disadvantage in running and have offered suggestions on how to lose those pounds, only to be followed by advice on ignoring the scale with no trigger warning about numbers mentioned in the form of BMI, even after mentioning how flawed using BMI as a guideline can be. Try to keep up with that! There was also an attempt to address body image issues in runners that misses the mark by linking to what's supposed to be an article listing the many causes of body image issues and, instead, lands the reader on an article with a focus on eating behavior in adolescents.

The one time David Roche could mention something extreme regarding the risks of losing too much weight, he forgets all his previous hyperbolic chatter and simply suggests it could be bad, with no mention that disorders associated with body image dissatisfaction can actually lead to death. He also mentions tummy rolls and looking in the mirror without mentioning body dysmorphia, a separate disorder that has some overlap with eating disorders. Just like telling an anorexic person to eat isn't very helpful, neither is telling someone who has a more serious dislike of her body to just love it. Healing from this kind of body dissatisfaction takes more work than faking it until you make it, though it's not a terrible idea to incorporate some positive thinking in any recovery plan. What's more important than engaging in tactics that focus on the symptoms only, is understanding why these unpleasant feelings and an abnormal focus on the body have emerged.

Then there's an article about eating disorders that suggests those who struggle can just eat and implies that those suffering would want to get well because otherwise they won't run as well. I will say this until I'm blue in the face: at its core, disordered eating is not about looks or gaining success. I understand the good intentions behind these types of articles, but this kind of advice is about as effective as telling someone addicted to smoking that they might get cancer and to just stop with the cigarettes already. While the article in the above link is better than many others relating to eating disorders, it still misses the point in a bad way about both why people struggle and the path to recovery by focusing on the symptoms instead of the deeper issues and the complexity of these illnesses. I appreciate that the author at least suggests to those who might have eating issues to seek help.

And lastly, imagine how the "NO BODY TALK" crowd, those who insist that nobody should ever comment on a woman's body, would react if the adjectives used in this article were applied specifically to women. And why is nobody upset that this perpetuates the supposed myth that elite runners at the top are always lean? Doesn't the article start out by saying exactly that, and isn't body composition a taboo topic? It seems pretty obvious that individuals who write running-related articles that point to what other people do and eat as a general guideline are rarely registered dietitians and probably shouldn't be giving out dietary advice to anyone.

Ultimately, running magazines are no better than any general fitness magazine trying to lure readers. Their target audience is anyone who will be attracted by a flashy headline. Deep down, their editors believe that weight loss is a topic that will draw in an audience, and it doesn't matter how susceptible their reader base might be to disordered eating. Careless advice can actually be dangerous when it comes to addressing anyone who's prone to developing an eating disorder. It's highly unlikely anything will change, though. Readers will still be bombarded by weight-loss suggestions, followed by encouraging articles that tell us to fuel up and eat what we want.

When Advice Is Worse Than None At All

2022-09-15T15:08:00.062-07:00

Boulder is a place that attracts a surprising number of fakes. The types of imposters here in Boulder are ones who cling hard to a label and boast about who they are but, in reality and probably without realizing it, show they are the opposite of whatever identity they claim to be. The yoga community is rife with people who like to look down on others, despite the philosophy of the practice in which they engage including teachings related to detachment, self-awareness, and spiritual knowledge, traits that, in theory, lead people to become better versions of themselves, not ones who prompt judgment and hubris. Here, yogis like to flaunt their fancy apparel and the fact that they attended Burning Man more than they focus on any spiritual advancements.

People who genuinely engage in the practice of yoga, on the other hand, are the opposite. They don't have to flaunt anything or use any kind of signaling, virtue or otherwise, to be admired. Being adored is not their goal. Their activity becomes part of who they are and isn't seen as good or bad. It just is. It's the same as if they didn't engage in the practice, because who they are is more important than what they do, how they dress, or how they look. They don't have to advertise what they do to anyone in order to feel content in the world.

It's easy to forget some simple rules of life -- you don't have to put on an act in order to be appreciated, and contentment isn't found outside yourself -- with the mess that occurs on social media, everyone screaming for attention. One of the best yoga teachers I ever had was overweight according to standard American weight charts, smoked, rode a motorcycle, and played in a rock band. He never wore flashy clothes and didn't have to adhere to any American stereotypes around the discipline; he was just really good at yoga and a top-notch instructor. He's a model for what it means to be authentic.

I view the running community at large the same way I look at the yoga community here in Boulder. Within the sizeable group, there are pockets of individuals who do good, sometimes really good things. They are inspirational and out to become the best version of themselves. These are people who create inclusive communities or foundations, or are skilled at what they do, or are simply kind and thoughtful. Most of these types are athletes or coaches, or people who want to do good in the world and limit their time on social media.

When it comes to running, Addy Bracy and also the Roots Running crew set a great example. Then there are a few who can balance a hearty dose of social media with a life away from the computer. Sage Canaday comes to mind. His social media content is informative, but he has fun with it and doesn't take himself too seriously. In sharp and disappointing contrast are the many self-appointed experts who like to offer bite-sized bits of imagined wisdom without really saying much. The ones who make up this last group are primarily writers, fans of the sport, and influencers.

Whether it's on social media or in a published article, people in this last group love to pretend the content they are sharing is fresh and new, but it's almost always information that has been presented before, usually without reference. Condensing complex ideas into pithy little sayings is rarely helpful, and using hyperbole to the point of absurdity is equally unnecessary and uninteresting. Stephen King cautions against writing past your ability, yet so few are willing to take his advice. They think using as many adjectives as possible is the way to go, even if the modifiers are used incorrectly or make readers cringe. Don't fake being a virtuoso if you can't play the scales. Instead, work on your technique and try to enjoy the process. That's what I do.

Many errors could be easily corrected in published material if a qualified editor would step in, but running magazines seem to have a shortage of competent editors, Runner's World being the occasional exception, and anything by Alex Hutchinson being the consistent exception. Really, though, it's not fully the responsibility of the writer to offer up a perfect final piece. It’s unfortunate that anything goes these days.

Some of the more bizarre life and training takes I have seen online and in publications recently include the following:

1) A coach claimed that rest is different for everyone. He suggested that for some it’s a day off, but for others it’s a 15-mile run. A few of us corrected him on Twitter, saying that 15 miles, even at the most leisurely pace, isn’t even a recovery day since anything that long is going to take a toll on your body. It can be an “easy” day for some but definitely not a rest or recovery day, even if it might seem like a piece of cake to very fit individuals. Rest is rest and means just that. “Active rest” means engaging in low-intensity activity for a limited duration and allowing your body to recover, not breaking it down further.

2) On Twitter, a well-known athlete announced that there’s no such thing as overtraining, only under-fueling or not getting enough rest. My response to that is: bullshit. Overtraining is doing more than your body can safely manage at any given point. You can eat and sleep well and still do more than you are physically or emotionally able to handle and land in doing too much territory. Sure, in the big picture, most training issues can be resolved by getting adequate nutrition and rest, but we are complex beings. Any kind of maladaptation to stressors can lead to overtraining syndrome, so it's more complicated than a hasty one-liner designed to generate lots of likes on social media can convey.

3) One of the more shocking declarations I saw was from an account called Anorexia Myths on Twitter, in which the poster suggested that all anorexic thoughts center around food and implied that eating food will fix the problem, which couldn't be further from the truth. This mother of two anorexic children is taking a symptom of the illness and calling it the cause. Eating disorders are complex, and recovery doesn't come down to "eat a sandwich!" This kind of take diminishes individuals who struggle and suggests that eating disorders are a choice when, in fact, they are not. In her attempt to debunk myths around the illness, she's actually perpetuating them.

4) It's hard to imagine that there were two articles, one in Women's Running and the other in Trail Runner, that focused on strength training by suggesting individuals simply lift heavy shit or do some body-weight exercises now and then. This bright idea was promoted by a coach and writer on Twitter as well. A more interesting and realistic approach would be to discuss muscle activation, strength specificity, and structural strengthening, but that's not as appealing to writers who want to attract the attention of the general masses on social media. It takes too much thought and is too narrowly focused on runners to get into why and how athletes might benefit from an actual lifting or strength program. Just lift shit is easier to convey, isn't it?

Instead of bad advice in running magazines, here's a link to someone who knows how to assist athletes with individualized strength programs: KPPerformance

5) In the same vein as "just lift shit" is a recent article in Women's Running with the groundbreaking message: Just move a little. Women's Running and other running publications are now in the habit of publishing what looks more and more like blog content than actual articles, which could be interesting if the authors thought a little bit about their target audience and didn't present everything as if either the world is ending or everything is idyllic. Seriously, writers go from You can be all you want to be! to You'll get slow and need to avoid snacks, and that will be dark as hell when you... go through puberty or go through menopause or go through a pandemic or get old, or get injured, etc.

If you're writing for a running as opposed to a fitness magazine, the "Here are a bunch of exercises anyone can do. Fuckit if they relate to running or not" approach isn't best. If a reader searches hard enough, she might find a helpful concept -- that people should exercise for their health, even if they're not going to race -- in these types of overly general articles, but most are lacking so much in depth that the sentiment is nearly lost. People benefit from information that's to the point, not from overly vague concepts.

If the topic is transitioning from being a competitive runner to being a jogger, discuss the psychological aspects as well as the reasons why some might need or simply choose to make the switch and how the change can affect a runner. Claiming something is depressing without explaining why or getting into how to address it isn't helpful.

Those of us who have raced, even if it's not at an elite level, are likely to have difficulty with identity as shifts in training volume and intensity occur, forced or not. Imagine how I have felt the last year or so not being able to walk at times, but even I have adapted. Kara Goucher, in a brief update in February this year, brought up the difficulty of being faced with a life-altering condition as a runner who identifies as such. Her short post resonates with more readers than many so-called articles because she allows herself to be vulnerable and lets people know that she's embracing the unknown in her situation. She takes each day as it comes, acknowledges her fears, and does what her body and mind will allow.

Even though we are creatures that no longer hunt and, as adults, rarely play, our bodies and souls still crave movement and a challenge. As a species, we do better if we are active, but when we can no longer hit high mileage or intensity goals, there are ways to satisfy the inner longing to engage in exercise, even if it's no longer all that vigorous.

There is a way to transition to cross training or jogging or walking, whatever activity your body can manage, and create beneficial physical and psychological challenges while still being gentle with ourselves in order to reduce the risk of injury. If life pulls you in a different direction, it doesn't mean you have to say, "fuck it!" and let go completely. And if you do, there's nothing really wrong with that, either, as long as you're making some effort to maintain health, however you and your doctor define that. Sometimes a complete break is not just fine but necessary. Exercise is something you can always return to.

A terrible message and one that's likely to scare individuals into not trying at all is that starting an exercise program is difficult and unpleasant. I see this over and over again. On some level, this may be true that starting or starting over may be difficult. Any change can be hard, but a new beginning is also exciting and rewarding, especially after a forced break. Yes, fatigue might hit you hard initially, but you can measure progress fairly quickly.

Besides, training doesn't have to be done in extremes. Life doesn't come down to either working toward race goals or sitting on the couch. There are plenty of options between the two.

Even without structured training, you can still run or bike time trials, jump in fun runs, race for charity, do relay-type races with teammates, race for the sheer pleasure of it, or map out an adventure run for the heck of it. There's no rule that says you can't hire a coach, either. It's fine to receive guidance even if you have no racing goals.

What's very much lacking in the articles I see in most running magazines around change and reduced activity, especially in older athletes, is the mental and emotional aspect of running and how deeply former athletes are affected by not being able to engage in the sport they love.

In an interview I did with Suzy Favor, we discussed depression and how not running at a high level after spending years training hard can affect a runner's mental health. Simply saying "my identity was once a runner and now I jog" doesn't go into how to most effectively manage any upheaval that can occur when transitioning or being forced into a less athletic role.

Not one running-related article of this type mentioned processing strong emotions that might come up and even grieving the loss of your former self. For some of us, losing the ability to race or train hard is like losing a best friend, and every time we go out and can't reach our potential, the sadness is there, lingering in the background. It's not easy and can take a long time and a lot of work to accept where you are and stop looking back. I still struggle with it. For Suzy, therapy was helpful.

6) The last topic I'll cover is that of a coach and writer who basically suggested to his audience that a good approach to training is to do what a great athlete (who's probably doping and has a team working with him) does. If he doesn't lift weights, drop the barbell! This is some of the worst advice anyone can give.

Copying a professional athlete is an approach that's not individualized, and how someone else achieves success might not work for you. For example, if you're an athlete with some muscle imbalances, lifting might help prevent injury while avoiding strength work because someone said a certain pro skips it could increase the chances of getting hurt. Lifting can help increase overall strength including supporting muscles, which also helps prevent injury. "You do you," not "You do someone else" (you know what I mean) is the best advice here.

I'm really glad to see that Sage Canaday started a coaching program. I think he will offer athletes some great advice based on his experience, knowledge, and his ability to have fun. Also, he seems to have assembled a great team to assist him.

I don't have an editor, so I'm sure this doesn't read as a brilliant article. Still, I hope it inspires some thought or offers some guidance to readers.

Fuck Your Plate of Pasta

2022-07-28T16:46:00.014-07:00

There's no question that I have tremendous empathy for anyone who has struggled with an eating disorder. Knowing what it's like, I wish anyone who has starved, binged, purged, hated themselves, or self-harmed well. These are terrible illnesses to manage and my heart aches for anyone in the throes of any illness.

My empathy for anyone having a hard time, however, doesn’t negate the anger I feel when I see individuals, some who probably mean well and others who are clearly opportunists -- those who prefer being seen over doing what’s right -- post misleading information or outright misinformation about either these kinds of disorders or their recovery.

Unfortunately, with the Internet, anyone can dump a heap of words into an article or blog post, proudly waving the newest word salad shooter, and act like he or she is some kind of expert in a given field.

I see this all too often when it comes to eating disorder recovery. What a shame that with a recent movement encouraging others to share their story, whatever it might be, there wasn't also a disclaimer insisting that people be both honest and considerate. As a result of a world that's more focused on appearance and less and less on skill and good intentions than ever before, we're stuck with individuals cramming their falsehoods in our faces under the guise of a bona fide university lecture.

People who desperately crave attention don’t think about how their words might affect others. Their main concern is increased notoriety. They want to be pointed at and adored, and many will take a few crooked steps to achieve this.

With everyone being able to declare themselves anything they want these days, even editors who are hired for publications when, for example, they don't know the difference between who and whom, incorrectly use it's instead of its, have never properly used a semicolon in their lives, and don't think there's a difference between every day and everyday, it's easy to understand why misconceptions about illnesses so quickly and easily spread. It's alarming what some running journalists and their editors present, especially when it comes to content related to eating disorders.

In a 2007 article, for example, one author of a piece on female athletes and eating disorders mentioned triggering numbers, incompletely or wrongly defined anorexia and bulimia, and suggested coaches should identify eating disorders in athletes by looking at the runners' bodies, which wouldn't really help detect any other disorder except possibly severe anorexia.

Remember, how someone looks and even what someone weighs doesn't tell a complete story. According to ANAD, less than 6 percent of people with eating disorders -- about one in seventeen -- are medically diagnosed as underweight. Then again, this is a writer who made a fat-kid reference in a failed joke attempt on social media, so her understanding of these illnesses and her compassion for anyone struggling appear to be lacking. And, despite more authors avoiding potentially triggering numbers these days, information on eating disorders presented in running and other magazines is still quite often inadequate at best and potentially harmful at worst.

Disclaimer: I make mistakes, a lot of them. Long before it was established that numbers can be triggering, I wrote my first book and used them, but I have never published content online without a warning if I feel anyone might be triggered. I’m also not an editor and don’t consider myself a great writer. I have dyslexia, which is why I would never consider taking a job as an editor and also why I tend to blog more than actually write material to submit to publications.

My content is truthful, though, and my goal has always been to help others find a way through the darkness of an eating disorder. But more recently, my goal has shifted to include pointing out frauds and those who, intentionally or not, give people the wrong idea about what it’s like to suffer from a potentially deadly disorder.

It's one thing to lie to yourself. But when you lie to the public, you risk harming specific individuals in a venerable community.

Mark Twain was correct when he said that a lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots. Twitter and social media in general speed up this process even more so. Just the other day, a political pundit reposted a statement about Trump that was obviously false, though with news relating to Trump it's often hard to tell. Still, this was far-fetched enough to cause any normal, rational person to say, "Hang on, there, Billy," and look to Google for some clarification. Instead of this person's followers questioning it, though, they all started retweeting it and commenting on it as if it were true.

That episode and countless like it demonstrate why someone with a very large platform presenting herself as an expert in dealing with eating disorders despite having no credentials can end up doing a lot of people a disservice, and can even cause harm by giving out misinformation: That misinformation spreads so quickly and within a community in desperate need of true information and rational, compassionate guidance.

While I'm not surprised that misinformation spreads, I find it strange, given the availability of information on the topic, how many individuals still insist that there's no big difference between disordered eating and an actual eating disorder. I just read another article in which the author brushed over the difference and lumped the two together, no-big-deal style. There is a difference, and it's important to know that because there are different approaches for dealing with each. And once a person crosses into eating-disorder territory, it can be extremely dangerous and could require more immediate and intensive care.

Disordered eating is playing with fire, but having a full-blown eating disorder is like walking into the flames. Both should be addressed and taken seriously.

I've mentioned before that when Lauren Fleshman and others like her imply that eating disorders are illnesses that mentally tough people can more easily avoid, they give people the wrong idea about these kinds of disorders and recovery.

Imagine being in the throes of such a dark and overwhelming illness and seeing someone with a large platform suggest that people who struggle lack mental toughness. But errors in judgment when it comes to content can be more subtle than someone confidentially and incorrectly suggesting she's mentally tougher than those of us who have struggled.

There's no doubt that having an eating disorder makes life more difficult and decreases your chances of truly excelling in a given area. A chef who doesn't taste his food for fear of weight gain won't be as successful as one who can adjust flavoring in the moment, just as athletes who are improperly nourished will likely suffer injuries, possible muscle weakness, and might also experience emotional burnout more quickly than someone who's well nourished. But nowhere in any of this are signs of a lack of mental toughness. It's important to distinguish between the harmful effects or side effects of these illnesses and grit or fortitude, which isn't usually lacking in those who struggle, especially distance runners.

It's actually not uncommon to see dishonesty, even in recovery circles. When you think about it, it's not all that surprising since those with eating disorders become skilled at lying and manipulating, just like any other addict, in order to keep engaging in the behaviors that feed their obsessions and compulsions. Much of the time, subtle fibbing online comes from people who let slide with their words that they are still unwell, but post images of themselves sitting in front of a plate of pasta pretending to eat mounds of those high-carb ribbons. It can also come from writers who publish articles in which they push the idea that they eat loads and loads of junk food, just massive amounts of it while sitting on the couch, and isn't that hilarious and cute?

It gets old seeing that shit, and it's not nearly as funny as the images of women laughing alone with salad but equally unrealistic to think that an image of some food suggests complete recovery or happiness.

What and the amount of food people eat is all relative. I used to call what looks like a snack to me now a huge meal when I was sick, and sometimes I would exaggerate descriptions of my portions when I wanted to get concerned relatives off my back.

Strangers on the Internet don't need to know what or how much you eat. There's such disregard for people struggling by individuals who claim to want to be part of the recovery solution, but nobody needs to see your "what I eat in a day" video or read about how many bags of potato chips you eat while sitting on the couch. It’s just not helpful, and, as I've mentioned before, I’m excluding people who share fun recipes or post nice images of a meal they fixed. That's innocent enough and not what bothers me. I’m talking about people who are trying to push a narrative, either to fool themselves or the public or both.

Nobody promoting recovery needs to imply that getting well means eating nothing but junk or massive amounts of a given food. True recovery is about so much more than what you eat. It’s about honoring your body, having compassion for yourself and the struggles you have endured, feeling emotions, healing past trauma, being more flexible, and engaging more fully in the world. It's about living, not simply eating something because training hard gives you that right.

That's another problem with people who may mean well but entirely miss the mark: Too often, food is presented as fuel but with the implication that it's really the reward, a treat for expending energy instead of a necessity, sustenance for living, not to mention a way to connect, to enjoy life, and to honor family or cultural traditions.

Nearly every athlete-turned-writer I have seen publish a piece on eating disorders, whether they realize it or not, suggests that you can eat "fun" food if you exercise hard enough. What they don't get into is that you need food whether or not you are training. You need it if you're injured to help your body heal. You need it in order to function as a human being.

I often wonder if people who write in a way that suggests food is to be enjoyed more if you're an athlete realize how much they advertise their own insecurities. At least be honest.

With so much deceit in the world, even in the running world -- dopers, cheaters, frauds, grifters, and liars -- trust in society in general is waning. Lying isn't just bad for those witnessing it, though; it's detrimental to the one pushing flase stories. Though the brain of a liar changes and ultimately makes spewing falsities easier, not being truthful ultimately has consequences. When I was in the hospital being treated for my eating disorder, a nurse who was in recovery for bulimia told me the key to recovery is being honest with yourself and others. She was right. lies hurt others, but lying to yourself also causes harm.

This isn't to say that those struggling, me included in all the ways I do, can't be of service to others. My attempt in this post is to point out how unhelpful it is to yourself and others when you're not honest. Self-acceptance doesn't come if you present a false version of yourself to the world, and recovery doesn't come if you take a stance with friends, relatives, and therapists that basically states, "This is who I am, fuck your advice and observations about my behavior!" If that's your plan in life, fine, but don't share it as advice and pretend this is a useful path for others to follow.

Sharing stories can be a really great way to help remove the shame around eating disorders, but not if those doing the sharing are misrepresenting what they are doing and where they are in their process and, in the same breath, dictating how other people "should" manage.

This is not helpful. At all. Recovery is a process, but, as an author, if you "yada yada yada" over the important parts, like whether or not you're truly recovered, the deeper issues that contributed to developing your illness, what helped you recover, and how you maintain recovery through life's ups and downs, you're not contributing very much to recovery conversations.

If your main goal is simply to say you struggled, don't hide the details of where you are in your process behind a plate of never-to-be-eaten pasta. When you let people in and are authentic, that's when true healing can begin. I may have a ways to go, but I'm not hiding where I am behind images of food or suggesting I'm further along than I am by posting a plate of noodles that proves everything's just fucking fine.

Photo by mahdi chaghari

Blocked by Association

2022-07-20T06:02:00.010-07:00

In his book, "Medium Raw," Anthony Bourdain first calls Alan Richman a douchebag before correcting himself and opting for a more appropriate description: cunt. The insult was preceded by a long explanation of why the guy deserved the title, but just as flawlessly, Bourdain wrote paragraphs praising those who deserved it. The phenomenon of vilifying those who react to misdeeds instead of those who commit them is nothing new, so it wasn't surprising that some readers bristled at Bourdain's use of the C-word and unjustly turned their anger not on the food critic who ripped on the New Orleans restaurant scene shortly after Kartina but on the guy with the flowery vocabulary.

This kind of reaction occurs quite a lot in politics and online, where everyone is looking for any reason at all to become irate and quickly blame the messenger instead of those engaging in questionable behavior. Surprisingly, though, it happens in the athletic community as well. Ross Tucker addressed extreme thinking and an "us vs them" mentality in the most recent episode of The Real Science of Sport. When it comes to transgender athletes in sport, those on the extreme left immediately paint anyone who considers it unfair for trans women to compete against women as someone on the extreme right, which is rarely the case. It's a terrible take for anyone to define a person by only one issue and to assume that, based on that one issue, a person automatically thinks a certain way across the board, that this person who wants fairness in competition is transphobic, a Nazi, or associated with extremism.

More people are starting to realize that, despite the issue being complex when it comes to emotions, inclusion versus fairness in women's sport is pretty straightforward when it comes down to the science, and with increasing evidence that transgender women retain an unfair advantage even with hormone suppression, over 50% of Americans are against allowing trans women who have gone through puberty as their biological sex to compete against women and girls. Yet anyone who holds this majority opinion is often called names, threatened, vilified, or blocked for having an opposing opinion. You're seen as the enemy if you think differently on this or any other issue. It's no different from extreme religious cults. You can be on the same page as far as human rights, education, taxes, climate, and abortion, but if you want fairness in sport or truth in reporting, holy hell you are the goddamn fucking devil.

Recently, I was blocked without warning by another individual because of my association with Kevin Beck. I may not like the fact that Anthony Bourdain called someone a cunt (I hate that word) even though the guy deserved it, and I may not like some of the adjectives Beck uses to describe certain individuals. I also don't agree with him 100 percent of the time, but I often repost his material because he is a phenomenal writer, is almost always correct, sticks to the truth as much as humanly possible (except for the obvious stretches meant to be humorous), isn't afraid to defend his position, and is one of the few writers who consistently puts out great running content, far better and more accurate than that of most paid journalists. But because he's not on social media for anyone to block, I'm the next best thing. Forget the shitty content, lies, and misinformation others publish and post, shoot the messenger of the messenger.

What's bizarre to me about all of this is the fact that other people who repost the same content are not blocked. There's something about me in particular that apparently scares people like Chris Chavez, Erin Strout, David Roche, and whoever runs the Citius Magazine Twitter page. I'm trying to figure out why simply not looking at my Tweets and retweets, mostly of Smol Paul and rescue cats, wouldn't be a better solution since I haven't ever really interacted with any of these people and have never called anyone names. That's not my style. From a business standpoint, why would anyone associated with Trail Runner, Women's Running, or Citius Magazine block someone who has a long history in the sport, has co-authored a book about running, and has run at an elite level? True, I'm no longer a runner, but I occasionally keep up with the sport and write about it. And I'm not that scary.

After a recurrence of an issue I've been having and a short trip to the ER, I spent two weeks not being able to walk and another one gradually moving one foot in front of the other. As much as I wish I could get into watching track meets or keep up with other races, running events never pull me in like they used to, unless I suspend disbelief, which I have mentioned before. Every time I see someone fall and feel bad or see someone win and feel excited, I remind myself how unlikely it is that those at the top are clean and feel depressed that I ever put so much effort, to the point of being a gimp now, into a sport that attracts so many liars, cheats, and ass-kissers. I'm starting to sound like Beck, but how can anyone who follows the sport at all not? How can people just accept the obvious misbehavior of so many individuals, even if they try hard or are nice? Running journalists act like they're in a popularity contest, not there to report. The exceptions are Sarah Lorge Butler and a few others, mostly old-timers, who tend to stick to actual reporting, not biased coverage.

I find myself having a harder time wanting to be in this world a lot of the time. Between the pain I've had to endure to the shitty way people are to deep self-hatred, there's not a lot to look forward to. Sometimes I think I'll continue working on my novel, and then I look at it and think how bad it is. It might be better than some really terrible published shit, but I can't seem to push past the self-doubt and my critical mind. I'm lost with where to go with it. No wonder people like Bourdain eventually end things on their own terms. The world and the people in it can be nice, but this planet can also be such a difficult place to exist. Too bad I'm too much of a coward to act on any of my dark thoughts. At least there's chocolate, I guess.

It's funny that I wrote the first paragraph of this post and struggled to get through it. Then it suddenly disappeared, one of those glitches that leaves a writer stunned and horrified, all those carefully placed words sucked into some kind of Internet void. I had a tantrum and immediately thought it was a sign I should give up writing. After some deep breaths, though, I started putting the ideas back down and recreated what I had lost, probably not exactly in the same order. I'm not sure why I share this, but maybe it's not quite time to give up on everything completely.