Archive for March 13th, 2012

CNN Tries to Dismiss Breitbart Story, Soledad O’Brien Tells Critics to ‘Stop Tweeting’

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

Last week, CNN’s Soledad O’Brien got into a heated debate with’s Joel Pollak over his story tying then-law student Barack Obama to radical professor Derrick Bell. O’Brien insisted that neither Bell nor his critical race theory was radical, and then hosted an Emory Law professor on Monday to debunk Pollak’s story.

“No, it’s nothing about white supremacy,” Professor Dorothy Brown asserted of CRT, refuting Pollak’s charges that critical race theory was “all about” it. However, as Rightsphere noted, she now must defend her previous explanation of critical race theory which clearly includes an interpretation of white supremacy in law.

Brown unloaded on Pollak’s story, calling it a “smear tactic” and adding that he “wasn’t going to be persuaded by the facts. He was going to make his own facts up.”

O’Brien told off her critics at the end of the segment. “See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people,” Soledad insisted condescendingly.

A transcript of the segment, which aired on March 12 on Starting Point at 8:32 a.m. EST, is as follows:

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: Alright, so it started there and it kind of went downhill from there. Let’s bring in Dorothy Brown. She’s a professor of law at Emory University and she teaches critical race theory. She literally wrote the book by that same name. Derrick Bell wrote the preface to the second edition of that book. It’s nice to see you. I’m going to have you just walk us through the whole conversation. So first of all, give us a 101, in terms that we can understand. What exactly is critical race theory?

DOROTHY BROWN, Professor of Law, Emory University: Critical race theory seeks to explain judicial decisions by asking the question what does race have to do with it? It’s that simple, that straightforward. There’s no hidden conspiracy theory behind it. It looks at race in America. And we know through our history that race has had a lot to do with judicial decisions and statutes.

O’BRIEN: Okay, so then when we had that conversation, which you were just listening to – and it went on and on and on for like, at least 10 minutes – one of the things you heard Mr. Pollak say, he said it’s – critical race theory is all about white supremacy. That’s the chunk that we just played. So you’re a professor, you teach this theory. You’ve written a book about it. Is it all about white supremacy?

BROWN: No, it’s nothing about white supremacy. When I hear white supremacy I think of the Ku Klux Klan. Critical race theory is the opposite of that. So honestly, I have no idea what he was talking about.

O’BRIEN: So when you look at the Wikipedia entries – and did you know after – from the time we’ve done that back and forth to, to I guess  today, the Wikipedia entry has been changed 82 times.


O’BRIEN: (Unintelligible) – which, by the way, I haven’t touched the Wikipedia entry. And I have other stuff to do. Are you surprised that there is this parsing of the Wikipedia? Is it a theory that is so nuanced that there are various interpretations of it?

BROWN: I would say there are various interpretations to this extent. There are lots of critical race theorists that are at different ends of the critical race theory spectrum. So if you got five of us in a room, we might get into a fight about what critical race theory was, but no one would say it’s about white supremacy. We agree on that.

O’BRIEN: Alright, so Mr. Pollak also said that the theory holds that, quote, “the civil rights movement was a sham,” and in one of the conversations we had we talked about how Derrick Bell was criticized by some black leaders and he also was critical of them. Would he also have said that the civil rights movement was a sham or that Brown vs. Board of Ed was a sham?

BROWN: He wouldn’t say it was a sham. But he has been very critical of civil rights cases like Brown vs. Board of Education. And his argument – Professor Bell’s argument – was the solution did not get the children what the children needed. So perhaps the lawyers in the cases didn’t spend enough time talking to the parents. So Professor Bell’s argument is, you know, maybe if we had gotten fully funded separate but equal, that might have been a better alternative to what we have today.

O’BRIEN: Okay, when you look at, this is one other thing that’s written. “We can see the clear footprint of CRT” – critical race theory – “all over the Obama administration.” Because, of course, this theory was really a conversation that – they were trying to connect it to President Obama’s embrace of Derrick Bell, who, of course, was one of the founders of this theory. It goes on to say “President Obama obviously believes the system is unjust, upholding racism and requiring ‘community organizing’ to change it in earth-shaking ways.” Do you, in fact, see a footprint of CRT all over the Obama administration, which we’re several years in now?

BROWN: No. I see no footprints. I see no vapors. I see none of critical race theory in President Obama, either his writings or what he’s actually done in office. I’m dumbstruck by that statement.

O’BRIEN: So what do you think’s going on here? Because the conversation – and I know you’ve read the transcript of our back-and-forth. I think we have also have it online so anyone who’s missed it can go back on. What is going on, do you believe? Because it got very heated.

BROWN: Yes, I believe what’s going on is the person that was on your show wasn’t going to be persuaded by the facts. He was going to make his own facts up. So when he makes statements like that, there’s no evidence in support of it. He talks about, if I recall, the attorney general’s office doing something but it wasn’t anything specific. So I look at this as a smear tactic.

O’BRIEN: Derrick Bell died last year. I think he was in his 80s, early 80s, I believe. What do you think – I mean you know, I never knew the guy. I just read his book, I thought it was pretty –  “Ethical Ambition.” I thought that was a pretty good book. What did you – what do you think he would think of all this? Do you think he would be turning over in his grave right now or do you think he’d not care?

BROWN: I think Derrick would be laughing right now for a number of reasons, one of which is this is just silly. The second of which is, wow, he’d say, critical race theory has gone mainstream. They’re talking about us. For all of his life people didn’t talk about critical race theory. God rest his soul. He’s passed on. We’re now talking about critical race theory and Derrick Bell being the founder of critical race theory.

O’BRIEN: Yeah, well he’s not on the receiving end of the crazy tweets that I’ve been getting about critical race theory as well.


BROWN: I’m sure not.

O’BRIEN: Thank you for joining us this morning. We certainly appreciate it.

BROWN: Thank you for having me.

O’BRIEN: See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Killer Pedersen avoids death penalty

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

David "Joey" Pedersen speaks with defense attorneys Donald Wackerman (left) and Gil Levy after pleading guilty to two counts of aggravated murder Monday morning in Snohomish County Superior Court.

EVERETT, Wash. — A man pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of aggravated murder in the deaths of his father and stepmother after a prosecutor decided not to seek the death penalty.

David “Joey” Pedersen, 31, is set to be sentenced Friday to life in prison without parole, the only other possible sentence, The Daily Herald reported.

Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe has not yet announced a decision on whether to seek the death penalty for Pedersen’s girlfriend, Holly Grigsby, 28, who also was charged with aggravated murder in the September killings of 56-year-old David “Red” Pedersen and 69-year-old Leslie “DeeDee” Pedersen.

The prosecutor said he declined to pursue the death sentence for Joey Pederson after police turned up significant and credible evidence that his father had sexually abused his children and others decades ago. Joey Pedersen said the abuse was the reason he chose to kill his father.

Joey Pedersen and Grigsby, who have white supremacist ties, also are accused of killing 19-year-old Cody Myers in Western Oregon because his name sounded Jewish, and Reginald Clark near Eureka, Calif., because he was black. Those crimes potentially could result in federal prosecution because of civil rights issues.

Red Pedersen was shot once in the back of the head while he drove the suspects to a bus station in Everett after a visit. His son was accused of firing the fatal shot. Investigators believe the suspects then returned to the couple’s home to kill DeeDee Pedersen.

Investigators found her bound with duct tape and her throat slashed. The evidence suggests Grigsby wielded the knives, court papers said.

DeeDee Pedersen was not married to Red Pederson at the time of the alleged child abuse and was in no position to prevent or even know about it, Roe said.

Family members of the victims did not agree with the prosecutor’s decision against seeking the death penalty, even though Roe said it would have been appropriate.

“They were disappointed, but I believe understand my decision and my reasons for it,” Roe said in a statement.

Joey Pedersen was an aspiring mixed martial arts fighter. He grew up in Salem and spent more than half of his life in prison, including an 11-year stint for threatening to murder a federal judge in Idaho. He was released in May.

After the homicides, investigators said, he and Grigsby drove to Oregon in Red Pedersen’s Jeep and ditched the vehicle with the slain man still inside off a logging road. Authorities believe they crossed paths with Myers, who had left his Lafayette home to attend a jazz festival near the Oregon Coast. Myers, a devout Christian, turned up dead from multiple gunshot wounds.

Investigators believe the couple continued to Eureka, where Clark, a disabled black man, was killed.

The suspects were arrested Oct. 5 north of Sacramento.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The So-Called Russian Soul by Joseph Goebbels

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

The hard and pitiless battle for Sevastapol, as well as the recent broad offensive operations of the German army, have reopened a lively debate, above all in the neutral press. Similar to that of the past winter, it is on the issue of the so-called Russian soul. The spiritual as well as the territorial boundaries between Asia and Europe have always interested Western Europeans. It is not to be denied that the ethnic mixture that we called Russia before 1917 and the Soviet Union thereafter has been a riddle to our part of the world. That had nothing to do with tsarism then or Bolshevism today. It simply has to do with the fact that the various peoples joined together in this monster of a nation are not a people [Volk] in our sense of the word.

The many sides of the Russian soul which appears so complex and contradictory to us are in reality nothing but the reflection of the various peoples who are a part of it. It would be a mistake to evaluate it by the standards of Western Europe. What we call Russia has always been a collective mass. Only a small portion of it has made history. Earlier it was the tsarist upper class, today the Bolshevist-Jewish ruling clique. The broad masses of peasants and workers were only tools, having themselves no part in historical events.

The peoples of the Soviet Union live at a level of brutish primitiveness that we can hardly imagine. An exhibition called “The Soviet Paradise” has recently visited Berlin and other large cities, trying to show the nature of life in the Soviet Union through original materials. Normal and naive people can hardly believe it. One often saw groups of civilians discussing the matter heatedly, who then had to be told by a few wounded veterans of the Eastern Front that reality in the so-called workers’ and peasants’ paradise was even worse than what was presented. It is significant that the campaign against the Soviet Union has not brought back any fond memories of communism. None of our soldiers has seen any evidence of an agreement between the theory and practice of Bolshevism. None has returned from the East as a communist. The veil has been removed. Bolshevism is not a danger for us any longer.

It still seems astonishing that the Soviet army has put up resistance against our troops that they have not encountered in previous campaigns. They fight with a stolid, almost bestial determination, and sometimes show a contempt of death that is more than remarkable. Participants in the Battle of Sevastopol relate stories of the resistance of the Soviet troops that need explanation if they are not to unsettle a large part of the public.

The Russians throughout their history have always shown a particularly stubborn and tough manner of defense, while never being particularly gifted at offense. Their national character has a defensive nature. They are stolid and animalistic. They are accustomed to a hard and impoverished existence, and therefore do not hold on to life all that strongly. The average person has less worth than a bicycle. A rapid birthrate quickly replaces any losses. They have a type of primitive toughness that one cannot call bravery. It is entirely different. Bravery is a kind of spiritual courage. The toughness with which the Bolshevists defended their bunkers in Sevastapol was more a bestial drive, and nothing could be more mistaken than to assume that it was the result of Bolshevist views or education. The Russians were always like that, and will likely always remain so. It is also easier to throw a life away when there is no promise to it than when, even at the moment of danger, a distant paradise still seems to beckon.

One does not need to speak of the enormous danger that the armed uprising of such stolid millions is for Germany and all of Europe. For attacking soldiers, the motive of the defenders is not particularly relevant. The methods the Bolshevist commissars use to drive their troops to the last measure of resistance are not really all that important for the course of battle. It is however important to know it to prevent false impressions. Bolshevism is a master at exploiting the Slavic national soul. Only in Russia was this dreadful experiment possible. It required the primitive and bestial dullness of the peoples forming the Soviet Union, as well as their limited social and economic expectations. Its methods were then implemented with a consistency that amazed the observer.

Our first images of Bolshevism were not exaggerated, but understated. They were cast into the shadows by reality. We will not even mention the so-called social achievements of the Soviet system, which in comparison with ours can provoke only laughter or shock. It has hardly a matter of taste, however, to be astonished by the fact that Bolshevist propaganda largely succeeded in sealing the masses of Russian workers and peasants off from the world and persuading them by stupid repetition that they were living in a paradise on earth. Independent judgment requires the opportunity to compare. That is ruled out for them. The workers and peasants of the Soviet Union are like the man imprisoned in a dark dungeon for 25 years, who may easily be persuaded that a kerosene lantern is the sun.

The political commissar has a function in such a system that is absolutely incomprehensible for us. He wields the whip, both among the masses and in the army. He has full power over life and death, and his own head is on the line as well. The stolid masses are at his disposal. They are forced to choose between accepting it all or facing jail at the least or bestial death at the worst. There is nothing like an intelligentsia remaining to put up any resistance. The system has the resources to eliminate it at the earliest stages. The whole country is covered by a spy system that misuses children to spy on their parents. What choice do the stolid and hopeless masses have but to obey with the fatalism that lies within their racial soul, to give themselves up to their fate? What choice does a soldier in a bunker have when the commissar is standing there with a drawn pistol, and systematic Jewish propaganda has persuaded him that becoming a prisoner means not only death, but gruesome torture?

That really has nothing to do with bravery as we understand it. Even this system, when it faces the final test, will bend before the superior force of manly combativeness. The Bolshevists had a great advantage in their defensive positions, yet they capitulated after 25 days. In the end, their system lacks the free personal will that springs from the individual fighting spirit. It overcomes difficulty and danger not through terror and threats, but through individual bravery. Certainly international Jewry with its organized stolid and malleable human material is a dangerous enemy. Once it is used up, there will be no threat left for us to face. We would have to doubt the quality of our race, the goodness of our soldiers, and the fighting power of our worldview and principles if we even for a moment doubted that we can break this danger.

It is a part of the fate of the German race that at critical points it must defend itself against the threat from the East. It is especially dangerous today, bound as it is to the ruthless infernal goals of Jewish intellectualism. Without doubt it was a near fatal threat not only to Germany, but to all of occidental culture, when Jewry transformed the physical capacities of the East into a monstrous and armed Soviet military, aimed at Germany and all of Europe. The red commissar is defending his world tby holding together his attack on us. We must destroy his system if we want to live free from danger in the future.

This explanation goes beyond the realm of Philistine discussions of the so-called Russian soul. The old measures are inadequate to things of such an enormous spiritual and philosophical scale. The gigantic battle on the Eastern Front is shaking a world that must fall if we are to have any kind of a national future. The bestial brutality with which the enemy is waging war is proof of the enormity of the danger facing us. Everything is truly at stake. One cannot imagine the consequences if that system were to be implemented here. It would introduce Europe’s total domination by international Jewry. Our people would be subjected to the stolid brutality of a primitive race and would lose its most valuable aspects. London could only welcome such a thing. They have an opponent they are unable to defeat by their own strength, as the development of the war shows.

One therefore understands why we Germans have limited patience for intellectual discussions of a so-called Russian national soul, which must be thoroughly investigated in order to uncover its presumed secrets. There are no mysteries here, only facts. We are battling a world power that threatens our national life. The war is hard reality for us, not a philosophical question. We see its ghastly origins, and our soldiers are fighting for our holiest possessions. We do not underestimate our opponent. Still, we are as always persuaded that here too the higher race will triumph over the lower one, regardless of what infernal means it uses to escape its deserved fate.

We know well that Europe would be lost if the Axis powers did not defend it. We have given our part of the world renewed youth. The attack from the East against its life and culture will fail, because we will meet its stolid power with an offensive resistance that draws its strength from the intelligence of the leadership and the vitality of Europe’s young races.

As so often before, this time, too, the surging nomads of the East will be driven back to their steppes. That is the purpose of our battle against the Soviet Union.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The forgotten white slaves.

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?

King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

The Irish arrived in Jamaica over 350 years ago in the mid-1600s at the time of British Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell’s capture of Jamaica. When British Admirals Penn and Venables failed in their expedition to take Santo Domingo from the Spanish, they turned their attention to Jamaica, not wanting to return to Cromwell empty-handed. With reinforcements from British-held Barbados (many of whom were Irish) they made quick work of dispatching the weak Spanish defence and soon realized that they needed workers to support their new prize. They looked eastward to islands already under British control, Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Montserrat, and imported young, mainly male, bonded servants, many of whom were Irish.

In 1641 Ireland’s population stood close to 1.5 million. Following a 1648 battle in Ireland known as the “Siege of Drogheda” in which Irish rebels were brutally subdued, Oliver’s son, Henry, was named Major General in command of English forces in Ireland. Under his jurisdiction, thousands of Irish men and women were shipped to the West Indies to provide a source of indentured labour. Between 1648 and 1655, over 12,000 political prisoners alone were sent to Barbados. This was the first set to come involuntarily as prior to that the Irish had willingly chosen to subject themselves to terms of indenture for the chance to start a new life in the New World upon completion of their contracts.

By 1652, Ireland’s population had dwindled to a little over half a million famine, rebellion and forced deportation, all factors.Throughout the early years of the 1650s there was a push to send young men and women to the colonies in what the English believed was a “measure beneficial to the people removed, who might thus be made English and Christians; and a great benefit to the West India sugar planters, who desired the men and boys for their bondsmen, and the women and Irish girls in a country where they had only Maroon women and Negresses to solace them” (Williams, 1932, pp. 10-11). The 13-year war from 1641-1654 had left behind large numbers of widows and deserted wives. In addition, many Irish men, their properties confiscated by Cromwell had no means of making a living. By 1655 some 6,400 Irish had been shipped off when in March all orders to capture “all wanderers, men and women and other such Irish in their possession” were revoked (Williams, pp. 12-13).


The first stop for many of the Irish, Catholic and non-Catholic, was Barbados where they worked from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. with a two-hour lunch break, under the command of an overseer. Shirt and drawers were their only clothes and their homes, cabins made of sticks and plantain leaves (Williams, 1932, p. 42).

Following the 1655 British conquest of Jamaica, Irish labourers were largely sent from Barbados as well as Ireland to get the island up and running under British control. Within a decade, when many Irish had served their terms or indenture, their names begin to appear among the lists of Jamaican planters and settlers (Williams, p. 53).

Book written by Joseph J. Williams in 1932, exploring the origin of the Irish in Jamaica.


It is estimated that somewhere between 30,000 and 80,000 Irish were shipped from Ireland. One of the last shipments was made in 1841 from Limerick aboard the Robert Kerr. The Gleaner noted of these arrivals: “They landed in Kingston wearing their best clothes and temperance medals,” meaning they did not drink alcohol (as quoted in Mullally, 2003, part 2, pg. 1). The Gleaner also noted of another set of arrivals in 1842: “The Irish are repeatedly intoxicated, drink excessively, are seen emerging from grog shops very dissolute and abandoned and are of very intemperate habits” (as quoted in Mullally, 2003, part 3, p. 2). So the Irish gained a reputation for being something of a mixed blessing saints and sinners.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Totally Fit

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

The long run is the cornerstone of marathon training, yet it trips up many runners. You may be one of them: Once you start amping up the volume, your body starts shutting down. Another 26.2 dream dashed. Or is it? According to Brian MacKenzie, a power lifter turned ultraendurance athlete based in southern California, to go long, you have to be strong. To that end, MacKenzie, along with partner and two-time California state cycling champion Doug Katona, created CrossFit Endurance (CFE), a high-intensity, low-volume training plan that blends CrossFit conditioning (i.e., heavy, explosive strength training) with sprints, time trials, and tempo workouts. Goodbye, long runs. CFE reduces mileage to as much as one-quarter the average of a typical marathon program.

MacKenzie developed CFE while training for Ironman and ultramarathon events. (Prepping for your first marathon? Check out the Marathon Ultimate Training Guide) Following long, slow distance (LSD) training while preparing for an Ironman in 2004, he experienced knee problems and plantar fasciitis. So he did something radical. He replaced LSD workouts and easy runs with 20-minute CrossFit workouts, a conditioning program developed by former gymnast Greg Glassman that takes functional training to the extreme by combining power lifting, gymnastics, kettlebell training, and other blisteringly hard strength training. He kept the high-intensity speedwork found in many 26.2 plans, like 400-and 800-meter repeats. It worked for him–his high-test training twist helped MacKenzie evade injury and finish ultramarathons on less than 10 hours of training a week. In 2007, he launched CFE and remains vehement that a strong–really strong–body will carry you as far as you want to go.

Build your base–faster
Runners spend a lot of time talking about “base,” the aerobic fitness foundation–characterized in part by a stronger heart muscle, thicker capillary webbing, and improved enzyme production–necessary for optimum endurance performance. Traditionally, you’ve been told the best way to build your base is with long, slow aerobic workouts.

Yet some experts argue such adaptations can occur in less time with high-intensity runs. “If you do 400-meter repeats, the vast majority of energy is coming from aerobic metabolism, making sprints a very potent aerobic stimulus,” says Martin Gibala, Ph.D., professor of kinesiology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Gibala and his colleagues found that people who did short (25 minutes) cycling workouts with a series of 30-second sprints improved their fitness over two weeks at the same rate as those who rode for two hours at a lesser intensity. (Related: Bicycling Weight Loss Kick-Start Plan) “Pretty much every adaptation we measured could be realized through high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and lower volume.”

Gibala acknowledges that his study reflects a short period of training. “What we don’t know is how this plays out long term,” he says. “If you have 50 runners doing traditional training and 50 doing HIIT training for one full year, who turns out better trained? We haven’t done that study. But I bet they’re close.”

Build a really strong body
The other half of MacKenzie’s program is building strength through CrossFit. Workouts average 10 to 20 minutes, and combine “metabolic conditioning” exercises such as kettlebell swings, handstand push-ups, and pull-ups with classic moves like deadlifts and squats.

All that heavy lifting can translate to distance running. For one, it increases the force of your stride–the more powerful your push-off, the less effort you exert with each stride, the easier fast running feels, says Stephen S. Cheung, Ph.D., professor of kinesiology at Brock University in Ontario. “It also makes you more balanced and likely less prone to injury,” he says.

Some experts are concerned that forfeiting the long run does not adequately prepare marathoners–especially newcomers–to the rigors of extended time on their feet. However, even the most skeptical scientists acknowledge there’s wisdom behind CFE and that–like most plans–it may work for some runners.

Enhanced by Zemanta