Review on Adidas Adizero Pro
.
Throwback last week 5000M Time Trial.
.
Splits:
38.14 - 200m
80.57 _
82.51 |
81.21 |
81.55 |
81.45 | (400m)
81.23 | -- Into the Zone X 9 Laps
81.79 |
81.71 |
81.35_|
84.21 - Out of Zone...
82.71 - Start to Dig Deep...
75.25 - Last 400m
Season Best - 16:53.68 minutes
.
It was still a great effort for not running on track after such a long time.
.
It wasn't my first time wearing on carbon plate shoe as I previously got a UA HOVR™ Machina from @underarmoursoutheastasia . I put on it and tested it a few rounds. I could really feel the effect of Pebax® propulsion plate during some fast running sessions. As it wasn't a full plate, therefore the energy return is minimal to me, which is still making sense.
.
Long story short, when I was wearing this Adizero Pro during the Time Trial, I switched my running technique. By focusing more on pushing off from the ball of feet on one leg, lifting the other leg by pointing my front knee downwards (instead of pointing it 45 degrees upwards) with the shoe landing slightly above the track and extended my lower leg forward to cover a longer stride, at the same time my body was leaning in a much forward position to ensure my landing closer to my body.
.
After switching to this method of running, I personally felt the effect of CARBITEX Carbon Plate and it allowed me to maximize the propulsion during each toe-off. Based on the power meter from my watch, I achieved an average of 382 Watts and a 182 steps per minute cadence and an average stride length of 1.67m.
.
I was in the zone from the second laps onwards after I made the changes and until lap 11, fatigue kicked in, and I couldn't maintain that technique anymore and turned out I dropped my cadence, and started to have higher vertical oscillation, becoming inefficient for the coming two laps.
.
It required a lot of mental energy to be always aware of sudden changes on your running technique and I lost it on lap 11 and glad I still managed to push through the final 600m.
.
Overall, I rate this shoe with a 7/10 as the carbiflex plate is still too stiff, perhaps with more runs, it may turn out better.
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2萬的網紅Corinne Vigniel,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Learn how to recognise symptoms of mild altitude sickness, as well as the potentially deadly HAPE and HACE (fluid in the lungs/brain). Plenty of advic...
「6 feet to meter」的推薦目錄:
- 關於6 feet to meter 在 Soh Wai Ching - Athlete Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於6 feet to meter 在 Within Skin Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於6 feet to meter 在 元毓 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於6 feet to meter 在 Corinne Vigniel Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於6 feet to meter 在 6 feet to meters? - YouTube 的評價
- 關於6 feet to meter 在 Unit Conversion: 6 feet to meters - YouTube 的評價
- 關於6 feet to meter 在 "6-foot tall" or "6-feet tall"? - English Language Learners Stack ... 的評價
6 feet to meter 在 Within Skin Facebook 的精選貼文
(What about the sick people they are not wearing masks?)
外国人跟亚洲人的意识完全不同 !这让我非常愤怒,更不认同!
我不管口罩达到多少几率保护!至少我有一层保护。保护自己!保护家人!保护他人。就这么简单。
When one is Infected by coronavirus, he may not know it until later. Therefore,he goes around spreading the virus until the symptoms appear, and he puts on a mask, which is too late. So, how many people has he infected.... maybe 20! This is not your normal flu and is extremely contagious. You wear a mask, and I wear one, it is double protection! Proven in China. Putting a mask in public not just for protect yourself and as public consideration to control spreading if everyone wearing it. It is most effective way to control the outbreak.
I believe people have the right to choose on how to protect themselves. So fyi from a healthcare worker..this is what they teach us.. wether its droplet or airborne...
Droplet precaution-Droplets can be generated from the source person during coughing, sneezing, talking. Droplets may contain microorganisms and generally travel no more than 3 feet/1 meter from the patient. These droplets can be deposited on the host’s nasal mucosa, conjunctivae or mouth. We use surgical mask. t
Airborne precautions -virus, such as chicken pox or tuberculosis, that can be spread via tiny droplets in the air from your mouth or nose. These germs may stay suspended in the air and can spread to others. We use N95 and it should be fitted.
Frequent handwashing. If not available, hand sanitizer. Observe Coughing etiquette. Do not touch your mouth, nose and eyes. And follow up with your HCP if u have symptoms . There’s a lot of misconception about why these masks are worn.
The reason why everyone in Asia wears them, is so that even if you’re an asymptomatic carrier of the disease, your saliva and sneezes do not land onto public places where people may touch. If everyone as a collective, wears the masks, then everyone is protected. It’s all about team work to stay safe. It’s like if some people vaccinate but others choose not to, the ones who don’t are actually endangering those around them.
当一个人被冠状病毒感染时,他可能直到后来才知道。 因此,他四处传播病毒直到症状出现,然后戴上口罩,为时已晚。 因此,他感染了多少人。。。也许是20个! 这不是您的普通流感,具有极强的传染性。 您戴口罩,我戴口罩,这是双重保护! 在中国证明。 在公共场所放置口罩不仅是为了保护自己,还可以是公众考虑到的控制面罩(如果每个人都戴着)。 这是控制爆发的最有效方法。
我相信人们有权选择如何保护自己。 所以从医护人员那里得到的情报..这就是他们教给我们的..它的飞沫或空气传播的...
小滴预防措施-咳嗽,打喷嚏,说话时可能会从源头产生小滴。 液滴可能包含微生物,并且通常距离患者不超过3英尺/ 1米。 这些液滴可以沉积在宿主的鼻粘膜,结膜或口腔上。 我们使用手术口罩。 Ť
空气传播预防措施-病毒,例如水痘或结核病,可以通过口腔或鼻子中的微小飞沫传播。 这些细菌可能会悬浮在空气中并传播给他人。 我们使用N95,应该安装它。
经常洗手。 如果没有,请洗手液。 遵守咳嗽礼节。 请勿触摸您的嘴,鼻子和眼睛。 如果您有症状,请跟进您的HCP。 人们对为什么戴这些口罩有很多误解。
亚洲每个人都佩戴它们的原因是,即使您是这种疾病的无症状携带者,您的唾液和喷嚏也不会落在人们可能接触的公共场所。 如果每个人都作为一个集体戴着口罩,那么每个人都将受到保护。 确保团队安全至关重要。 就像有些人在接种疫苗而其他人选择不接种疫苗一样,实际上并没有危害到周围的人。
6 feet to meter 在 元毓 Facebook 的精選貼文
根據計算,100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東;200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。
順道一提香港15~30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看,兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。
另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair,幾天內湧進40萬人次,照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。(http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg)
當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車,幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。
而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。
順道一提,因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現:
https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/
EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)
6 feet to meter 在 Corinne Vigniel Youtube 的最佳解答
Learn how to recognise symptoms of mild altitude sickness, as well as the potentially deadly HAPE and HACE (fluid in the lungs/brain). Plenty of advice on how to prepare for the trek, plan a safe itinerary, and what to pack.
Follow our family, including our 11-year old son Lionel, on the Annapurna Circuit in winter. See how the altitude affected us as we climbed Thorong La (5,416 meters/ 17769 feet) – Kirk struggled with his breathing, Lionel felt nauseous, and I had mild hypothermia But we all made it safely in the end.
SUMMARY
*Watch out: some people may feel unwell as low as 2,000 meter (6,500 feet).
*Plan a slower ascent above 3,000 meters (10,000 feet)
*Climb high, sleep low. To be safe, only gain 300 meters (1,000 feet) in sleeping elevation at high altitude.
*If you climb faster than the recommended rate, you can build a rest days every three or four days to acclimatise.
*If you suffer from mild altitude sickness, drink a lot, and rest
*Avoid alcohol, which slows down breathing and makes you dehydrated. Avoid sleeping pills. And smoking will certainly not help!
*If you see no improvement, spend an extra night at the same altitude
*If you feel worse, descend to the last place where you felt well
*If you develop HAPE or HACE, this is a life-threatening emergency that requires immediate descent of and specialist medical care. You may have to descend in the middle of the night, don't wait till morning. Once fluid builds up in the brain or lungs, you can die in a matter of hours.
DISCLAIMER
This video is based on first-hand experience of struggling with the altitude on the Annapurna Circuit. We also spent decades of travelling in the Himalayas and Alps. With three decades in TV journalism, I've also done extensive research on the impact of high altitude.
I am NOT a doctor, and I do not have direct experience of taking drugs for altitude sickness like Diamox / Acetazolamide or Nifedipine for HAPE or the use of Gamow bags for hyperbaric treatment. So I have not included any information on this topic. Only sticking to what I have first-hand experience of.
I hope this video helps you plan a safe and enjoyable trek.
Director/video/editor: Corinne Vigniel
Shot between Bulbhule and Jomsom including
Bahundanda Sanjye Chame Timang Pisang Gyaru Ngawal Manang Yak Kharka Thorong Phedi Thorong High Camp Thorong La Mukhtinath Pokhara
December 14-30, 2016
Shot on Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3
Edited on Adobe Premiere CC
++All VIDEO AND PHOTOS COPYRIGHT CORINNE VIGNIEL++
MUSIC FOR TOP TEN TIPS FOR ALTITUDE SICKNESS
Downloaded From YouTube creator
Tip 1 training
Opening_Night_Jason Farnham_dance electronic inspirational 1.50
Tip 2 Planning
Cameras_ALBIS_rock inspirational 1.52
3 Gradual Ascent
Keep_Dreaming_Topher Mohr and Alex Elena_Pop calm 2.52
Tip 4. Acclimatisation
Don’t Look _ Silent Partner 4.25
Tip 5 Broken sleep
Keep_Dreaming_Topher Mohr and Alex Elena_Pop calm 2.52.mp3
Tip 6 – Mild Altitude Sickness
AMS
Hot_Heat_Topher Mohr and Alex Elana_rock inspirational 3.09.mp3
7 Danger HAPE HACE
So_Bueno_The 126ers_Rock inspirational 2.56
8 Food and drinks
Hero_Theme_Twin Musicom_cinematic dramatic 1.42 CC credit
9. Equipment
Voyeur Jingle Punks
10 Accidents / insurance + final world.
Accidents_Will_Happen_SIlent Partner
END
6 feet to meter 在 "6-foot tall" or "6-feet tall"? - English Language Learners Stack ... 的推薦與評價
When a measurement is used right before the noun it measures, use a hyphen and the singular form of the unit of measurement:. ... <看更多>
6 feet to meter 在 6 feet to meters? - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>