Summary for applying for an apartment in Tokyo
-Have your proof of income ready
-Easiest if you're an employee
-Bring your bank books and any relevant invoices etc.
-Be ready to substantiate your reasons for moving
-Be ready to share relevant contact details
-Be prepared to wait ~4 working days for the application to go through
-Be available. You will likely be called by guarantor companies, management companies/landlords
There are a lot of articles, forum posts etc. on renting apartments in Japan, all of which are pretty easily accessible from Google; however, I thought I'd share my experience on background checks for renting, which I couldn't personally find much information about.
So, I'd found some places on athome.jp that I liked, emailed the estate agent involved, and arranged a meeting. As seems pretty typical, none of the places I'd found were available, but they showed me some other places instead. I found one I liked, and we headed back to the office to start the application.
During the application (which took about an hour) I filled out a couple of forms. You might save a minute or so by knowing your birth date in the Japanese calendar. You'll probably save considerably more time if you're not self-employed. I am self-employed, so I also had to show reasonable proof that I could make the rent. I had 2 months worth of invoices (they would have preferred 3) and my bank book, of which they took copies.
They also wanted to know the reason I was moving to Tokyo. Now, in my head, the reason is that I'm more likely to find a research position in Tokyo than in rural Japan; however, in actuality I'm only in relatively preliminary discussions with one of the professors over here. Nonetheless, I opened my big mouth, assuming any old reason would do. This actually ended up with me having to provide the aforementioned professor's contact details (thankfully the professor is a nice guy, and was willing to help out), and these were not just retained by the estate agent, but passed on to both the guarantor company and the apartment's management company. To try and avoid making myself look like a complete ass from my prospective professor's point of view, I stressed to the estate agent, guarantor company, and management company that unless something firm was decided upon, my main subsistence was from my translation work.
At some point, and I don't recall exactly why, the estate agent took a copy of my PhD certificate. It was probably relevant to something I said.
After making the application on Saturday, I got phone calls from the guarantor company and management company on Monday and Tuesday, respectively. Basically they just went over the contents of the forms I'd filled on Saturday, and concentrated on the weakest part, being the reason for moving, to which I basically said moving to Tokyo will also be helpful for my translation work, but I intend to do research if possible. I think they were also keen to double check my earnings.
On Wednesday, I got the call from the estate agent to say the application had been successful. Just 4 days from applying! I'm pretty thrilled about that: I thought they were going to keep me hanging for at least a week, and I was half-sure they were going to reject it.
On reflection, I'm not sure how useful my case is. I imagine most people will not be self-employed, which will mean they have all the proof of income and reasons necessary to make things as smooth as possible. Also, perhaps having a professor (and a PhD) to vouch for me made a difference? Mine is a pretty unique case, so all I can really offer in advice is to have all your proof of income and be ready to substantiate your reasons for moving. For example, I really should have contacted the professor beforehand.
Still, as far as time scales go, you can probably expect to wait just a few days for the check to go through before you know you'll be able to move in.
P.S.
Lastly, if possible, I advise using a Japanese-speaking estate agent, I went both the a gaijin-friendly and to a normal estate agent, and found that the normal estate agent tended to have the better deals, or in the very least was more inclined to show them to me. If you have the patience to go to 2 or 3 estate agents, then I would highly advise it.
Oh, and never take flats on the ground floor. Maybe my nose has been over-sensitized by damp, dingy England, but the first-floor apartments I viewed universally smelled of mold. Given that I've lived in a house for the last year, and that the ground floor here is fine, I didn't really believe it, but having actually gone to 3 first-floor rooms and taken a good whiff (as well as inspect the cupboards for mold, and found it in 2 of them: use a torch or the light on your phone and look at the corners of the most difficult to clean part of the cupboard, usually the underside of the lowest shelf to the floor -ignore any strange looks from the estate agent- any fluffy specks that come off when applying pressure with your finger are probably mold), I'm never going to consider a ground-floor room again.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Technology and translation
Before I got into freelance translation, I thought of it as completely detached from computer translations. Indeed, when we talk about Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT), we are not referring to a computer translating for us, rather we're referring to the fact specialised software is used to assist in the translation.
Every now and then, I come across some complaints in the translation industry about technology, usually this centres on CAT tools, but here is an extreme example: In it, a translator is described who essentially was using a typewriter and fax machine into the age of email and word processing. Granted, to continue doing that, they must have been both an excellent translator and precise typist; however, resisting technology in today seems like a very, very bad idea.
Let me explain. A good CAT tool today will analyse the sentence you are currently translating, search through your previous translations, and if a decent enough match is found, it will automatically perform a translation. This spares the translator anything between 10-100% of the time translating that sentence (depending on how well the current context matches the context of the previously translated sentence). Clearly, anyone already using such tools has a competitive advantage in terms of speed. They can also offer lower rates.
The problem with CAT tools is that often one is forced to offer a lower rate, because the translation agencies know the translator is doing less less hours of work for the same work. Thus, you either keep up with technology or spend longer on a project for which you'll be paid less. At the moment, the situation isn't too bad: only one of the agencies I work for requests a lower rate for translations due to the CAT tools' ability to assist with some of the document.
However, are CAT tools going to become more or less efficient at this? I think you can guess the answer. At the moment, the CAT tool spiel touts that they make translation 20% faster (or more, depending on which spiel you're looking at). As technology progresses translators will be spending less time translating, and more time checking the CAT tool's work.
Then of course, at some point one of the big technology companies is going to come out with a computer that can do the whole thing for you, then we'll only need to review. Seriously. Did you imagine 15 years ago that you could ask a phone the weather, or mark appointments in the calendar for you? I'm possibly not being realistic*, but it is undeniable that the situation can only become more technology dependent.
*I imagine that when it comes to increasing translation speed, CAT tools will find it progressively difficult as they push past +50%. But machine translation is a bit of a black box to me: words go in one side and half-understandable gibberish comes out the other. The problem is that machine translation only needs to get to the point where words go in one side and really bad English comes out the other before one can basically say "we don't need translators any more! But we are hiring reviewers!". There are already companies that offer human-edited machine translations. The other problem with this being a "black box" is that is difficult for people on the outside to work out when the algorithms are going to reach that level of proficiency.
Every now and then, I come across some complaints in the translation industry about technology, usually this centres on CAT tools, but here is an extreme example: In it, a translator is described who essentially was using a typewriter and fax machine into the age of email and word processing. Granted, to continue doing that, they must have been both an excellent translator and precise typist; however, resisting technology in today seems like a very, very bad idea.
Let me explain. A good CAT tool today will analyse the sentence you are currently translating, search through your previous translations, and if a decent enough match is found, it will automatically perform a translation. This spares the translator anything between 10-100% of the time translating that sentence (depending on how well the current context matches the context of the previously translated sentence). Clearly, anyone already using such tools has a competitive advantage in terms of speed. They can also offer lower rates.
The problem with CAT tools is that often one is forced to offer a lower rate, because the translation agencies know the translator is doing less less hours of work for the same work. Thus, you either keep up with technology or spend longer on a project for which you'll be paid less. At the moment, the situation isn't too bad: only one of the agencies I work for requests a lower rate for translations due to the CAT tools' ability to assist with some of the document.
However, are CAT tools going to become more or less efficient at this? I think you can guess the answer. At the moment, the CAT tool spiel touts that they make translation 20% faster (or more, depending on which spiel you're looking at). As technology progresses translators will be spending less time translating, and more time checking the CAT tool's work.
Then of course, at some point one of the big technology companies is going to come out with a computer that can do the whole thing for you, then we'll only need to review. Seriously. Did you imagine 15 years ago that you could ask a phone the weather, or mark appointments in the calendar for you? I'm possibly not being realistic*, but it is undeniable that the situation can only become more technology dependent.
*I imagine that when it comes to increasing translation speed, CAT tools will find it progressively difficult as they push past +50%. But machine translation is a bit of a black box to me: words go in one side and half-understandable gibberish comes out the other. The problem is that machine translation only needs to get to the point where words go in one side and really bad English comes out the other before one can basically say "we don't need translators any more! But we are hiring reviewers!". There are already companies that offer human-edited machine translations. The other problem with this being a "black box" is that is difficult for people on the outside to work out when the algorithms are going to reach that level of proficiency.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Fix zoomed-in webcam on the Windows 8.1 Asus Transformer Book T100
A departure from my usual forays into all things Japanesey (unless you count the fact my Asus Transbook T100T is the Japanese version), I thought I'd go over how to fix the camera on this forsaken device*.
My advice is basically a duplicate of stuff already out there, but somehow I managed to miss it the last couple of times I googled, so if there's a chance it will make the info more available, perhaps it's worth the blog post.
Anyway, if you try to use Skype with the webcam on the Asus Transbook T100T, you'll find that a cropped section of the webcam's total field of view is displayed; it appears as though the webcam is zoomed in.
If you download ManyCam, install it, and run it, Skype gives the option (Tools-Options-Video settings-Select Webcam) of using "Manycam Virtual Webcam". Just like magic, the field of view is repaired, and the "zooming" effect gone! ... Assuming of course that you have the same problem as I did.
So what happened? As has been discussed previously (link), this may be a driver problem. Metro's camera program shows the webcam working normally. However, Skype doesn't appear to have the same access as that Metro app, so we provide it an alternative source (ManyCam) which does have proper access to the webcam. Whether or not this is a driver issue seems like speculation to me, but in any case the workaround sorted this problem for me.
* I actually love my Asus Transbook.. It's constantly starved of memory, could do with an extra USB port, and I went through such hell to get the thing to wake up from sleeping for extended periods of time that I manually disabled the sleep function and made the power button act as a hibernate button. However, it runs Skyrim, and all manner of goodness, whilst being capable of handling my research, translation and surfing needs, and still functions as a decent Windows tablet with a decent battery life.
My advice is basically a duplicate of stuff already out there, but somehow I managed to miss it the last couple of times I googled, so if there's a chance it will make the info more available, perhaps it's worth the blog post.
Anyway, if you try to use Skype with the webcam on the Asus Transbook T100T, you'll find that a cropped section of the webcam's total field of view is displayed; it appears as though the webcam is zoomed in.
If you download ManyCam, install it, and run it, Skype gives the option (Tools-Options-Video settings-Select Webcam) of using "Manycam Virtual Webcam". Just like magic, the field of view is repaired, and the "zooming" effect gone! ... Assuming of course that you have the same problem as I did.
So what happened? As has been discussed previously (link), this may be a driver problem. Metro's camera program shows the webcam working normally. However, Skype doesn't appear to have the same access as that Metro app, so we provide it an alternative source (ManyCam) which does have proper access to the webcam. Whether or not this is a driver issue seems like speculation to me, but in any case the workaround sorted this problem for me.
* I actually love my Asus Transbook.. It's constantly starved of memory, could do with an extra USB port, and I went through such hell to get the thing to wake up from sleeping for extended periods of time that I manually disabled the sleep function and made the power button act as a hibernate button. However, it runs Skyrim, and all manner of goodness, whilst being capable of handling my research, translation and surfing needs, and still functions as a decent Windows tablet with a decent battery life.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Japan "Enters the era of smartphones"
According to BBC News, Japan has freshly entered "the era of smartphones", and now everyone is worrying that we'll all be bumping into each other over here because we're too inconsiderate to look up from our LCD displays while crossing the street.
I'd like to point out that, if Japan has really been slow to adopt smartphones, there are two very good reasons for this:
1) The preexisting phones in Japan were unimaginably superior to the pre-smartphones of Europe. I remember coming to Japan for the first time in 2007 and being amazed at the capabilities offered by my Japanese mobile. In addition to the basics such as a camera etc., it had navigation (maybe GPS, or perhaps based on triangulation of transmitters), and email. My wife -then girlfriend- had a slightly better mobile that supported even nicer features such as TV: it honestly made phones on the UK market look absolutely laughable.
According to the wiki, the iPhone came out that year, but it was at least a year before it even entered the Japanese market. And if you already had a decent "standard" Japanese mobile, you might wonder at the advantage in getting an iPhone back then. In fact, according to Wikipedia "In 1999, the Japanese firm NTT Docomo released the first smartphones to achieve mass adoption within a country".
Basically, either the features Japan's phones were too competitive compared to our notion of "smartphones", or they were already fully-fledged smartphones. Effectively, Japan was using smartphones before anyone else. Maybe they weren't touch-screen, but they were powerful beasts for their time.
2) Utilising smartphones to their full potential requires a decent internet connection, and the mobile companies over here are very happy to charge an extraordinary amount of money for this service. There is very little choice when it comes to data plans, and if you go with one of the "big 3" providers here, you options are all or nothing. I'm not sure if this has been the case previously (there is a 6 year gap between 2008 and 2013 where I was in the UK), but I suspect expense will have been a big motivator for holding onto older mobile technology.
---
With that out of the way... I do wonder about the whole "dumbwalking" thing. I guess with the increases in functionality, there is a greater likelihood that people will be walking and doing something on their mobile, especially now things like LINE allow you to message without spending any yen. Increased adoption of phones in general is also likely to be a big contributor (even my 10 yr old nephew has a dumbed-down phone). Nonetheless, Docomo's simulation of everyone crossing the road while staring at their phones is really just a bit of sciency fun. I'm sure the simulations may have some use when realistic parameters are used, but you don't need me to tell you that most people will actually be looking where they are going. This is illustrated very cutely in the end of the BBC's article, where the author sets himself the goal of walking across a busy junction, deliberately not looking up from his phone, and the fact that "I'm sure I'm going to get hit, but after a few seconds I relax. It's OK. Everyone's reacting for me", and "It's so silly I have to look up". This is how the real world works: people try to get out of the way, but they are generally aware of the need to stop, and look up when necessary.
To be honest, its a nice little article, but I just get the feeling the author is trying to write life into an issue that simply doesn't exist.
Then again, I've yet to live in Tokyo.
I'd like to point out that, if Japan has really been slow to adopt smartphones, there are two very good reasons for this:
1) The preexisting phones in Japan were unimaginably superior to the pre-smartphones of Europe. I remember coming to Japan for the first time in 2007 and being amazed at the capabilities offered by my Japanese mobile. In addition to the basics such as a camera etc., it had navigation (maybe GPS, or perhaps based on triangulation of transmitters), and email. My wife -then girlfriend- had a slightly better mobile that supported even nicer features such as TV: it honestly made phones on the UK market look absolutely laughable.
According to the wiki, the iPhone came out that year, but it was at least a year before it even entered the Japanese market. And if you already had a decent "standard" Japanese mobile, you might wonder at the advantage in getting an iPhone back then. In fact, according to Wikipedia "In 1999, the Japanese firm NTT Docomo released the first smartphones to achieve mass adoption within a country".
Basically, either the features Japan's phones were too competitive compared to our notion of "smartphones", or they were already fully-fledged smartphones. Effectively, Japan was using smartphones before anyone else. Maybe they weren't touch-screen, but they were powerful beasts for their time.
2) Utilising smartphones to their full potential requires a decent internet connection, and the mobile companies over here are very happy to charge an extraordinary amount of money for this service. There is very little choice when it comes to data plans, and if you go with one of the "big 3" providers here, you options are all or nothing. I'm not sure if this has been the case previously (there is a 6 year gap between 2008 and 2013 where I was in the UK), but I suspect expense will have been a big motivator for holding onto older mobile technology.
---
With that out of the way... I do wonder about the whole "dumbwalking" thing. I guess with the increases in functionality, there is a greater likelihood that people will be walking and doing something on their mobile, especially now things like LINE allow you to message without spending any yen. Increased adoption of phones in general is also likely to be a big contributor (even my 10 yr old nephew has a dumbed-down phone). Nonetheless, Docomo's simulation of everyone crossing the road while staring at their phones is really just a bit of sciency fun. I'm sure the simulations may have some use when realistic parameters are used, but you don't need me to tell you that most people will actually be looking where they are going. This is illustrated very cutely in the end of the BBC's article, where the author sets himself the goal of walking across a busy junction, deliberately not looking up from his phone, and the fact that "I'm sure I'm going to get hit, but after a few seconds I relax. It's OK. Everyone's reacting for me", and "It's so silly I have to look up". This is how the real world works: people try to get out of the way, but they are generally aware of the need to stop, and look up when necessary.
To be honest, its a nice little article, but I just get the feeling the author is trying to write life into an issue that simply doesn't exist.
Then again, I've yet to live in Tokyo.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Translating typos with Google search
Its probably fairly evident that I love Google's services by now, and I thought I'd just highlight a particularly useful feature in Google search.
When translating documents upwards of 10000 characters (10+ pages long), the chance of finding a typo somewhere is not by any means small. I have on numerous occasions banged my head over a frustrating translation, where a word would simply not make sense in context.
My usual procedure is to double tap Ctrl+C to bring up Golden Dict, into which I've plugged in an offline version of the indispensable WWWJDIC, which will resolve 90% of my queries immediately. If this fails, I alt-tab to my browser where Weblio is waiting with a whole host of dictionaries (including WWWJDIC, and the Life Sciences dictionary by Kyoto University), which will catch the remaining 9.9% or so (and also tends to give some very nice technical usage examples).
If a word fails at this point, frustration sets in as I splice and dice the word to see if the supposed word is actually 2 or more words strung together, but even this will not help if the word is a typo.
In this case, there are few options left available, but a Google search is often invaluable, not only providing some nice usage examples, but sometimes even finding a definition in some obscure internet glossary. In the case of typos however, Google will automatically search using the "correct" spelling. At this point, the fact the search term is actually a typo becomes clear and we can start at the beginning with the correct term*. Lovely! Imagine trying to work this out for yourself with paper dictionaries back before computers were on hand. Eugh.
A word of warning, though. Google love search terms that are common, and it isn't necessarily obvious whether the Google search is deciding against using your search terms because of a typo, or because it is just prioritising what it thinks you want to read about.
*Today I came across "胚葉体形成" in a source document, which can be split into "胚葉" germ layer, "体" body, "形成" formation, which I initially translated as "germ layer formation", but was unhappy with the context, and while dropping "body" improved the flow I wasn't happy about it: "body" could have referred to cells in a germ layer. I decided to Google the term and see if there was a useful precedent, only to be bombarded by results for the similar: "胚様体形成". At this point, I realised "胚様" and "胚葉" are homophones, and that this may be a typo. Sure enough typing in "はいよう" with Microsoft Japanese IME puts "胚葉" at the top of the candidate suggestion list. "胚様体形成" translated to "embryoid body formation", which fit better into context.
When translating documents upwards of 10000 characters (10+ pages long), the chance of finding a typo somewhere is not by any means small. I have on numerous occasions banged my head over a frustrating translation, where a word would simply not make sense in context.
My usual procedure is to double tap Ctrl+C to bring up Golden Dict, into which I've plugged in an offline version of the indispensable WWWJDIC, which will resolve 90% of my queries immediately. If this fails, I alt-tab to my browser where Weblio is waiting with a whole host of dictionaries (including WWWJDIC, and the Life Sciences dictionary by Kyoto University), which will catch the remaining 9.9% or so (and also tends to give some very nice technical usage examples).
If a word fails at this point, frustration sets in as I splice and dice the word to see if the supposed word is actually 2 or more words strung together, but even this will not help if the word is a typo.
In this case, there are few options left available, but a Google search is often invaluable, not only providing some nice usage examples, but sometimes even finding a definition in some obscure internet glossary. In the case of typos however, Google will automatically search using the "correct" spelling. At this point, the fact the search term is actually a typo becomes clear and we can start at the beginning with the correct term*. Lovely! Imagine trying to work this out for yourself with paper dictionaries back before computers were on hand. Eugh.
A word of warning, though. Google love search terms that are common, and it isn't necessarily obvious whether the Google search is deciding against using your search terms because of a typo, or because it is just prioritising what it thinks you want to read about.
*Today I came across "胚葉体形成" in a source document, which can be split into "胚葉" germ layer, "体" body, "形成" formation, which I initially translated as "germ layer formation", but was unhappy with the context, and while dropping "body" improved the flow I wasn't happy about it: "body" could have referred to cells in a germ layer. I decided to Google the term and see if there was a useful precedent, only to be bombarded by results for the similar: "胚様体形成". At this point, I realised "胚様" and "胚葉" are homophones, and that this may be a typo. Sure enough typing in "はいよう" with Microsoft Japanese IME puts "胚葉" at the top of the candidate suggestion list. "胚様体形成" translated to "embryoid body formation", which fit better into context.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Reinterpretation of the Peace Constitution. Does it matter?
Japan's government has recently begun implementing its reinterpretation of the Peace Constitution. For more than 60 years, Japan has foregone the right to use military force except in self-defence, but the new changes being implemented by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) mean Japan will now exercise the right to "collective defence".
Here, collective defence means providing military force in defence of an ally. What does this mean in real terms, though? I think its fair to say that if a nation allied to Japan came under attack, that the Japanese government would be quick to forget the peace constitution and make ready to commit troops anyway, where such a conflict was endangering Japanese security. One example often touted by the media is the new ability for Japan to shoot down missiles from (for example) N. Korea, that were headed for an allied country (i.e. the USA). I would conjecture that even without the reinterpretation of the constitution that Japan would do this, because it cant risk losing face to America because of its dependence on the US for trade, and it could easily justify the action after the fact. The same goes for any conflict involving major trading partners.
In this light, the reinterpretation seems very much like what Japan has been continually doing: posturing. There is overwhelming support among the political parties of Japan for the reinterpretation, and so we can probably assume that (for example) shooting down a couple of North Korean missiles would be received relatively positively over here, regardless of the constitution. The real power of the changes is political: PM Shinzo Abe will gain a fair amount of domestic support from this move.
The problem with such reinterpretation of the constitution is the same problem with Japan that it has always had from posturing: international relations. China and S. Korea have both objected to the change, and the reinterpretation of the peace constitution provides a tempting foundation upon which to criticise Japan. It would be easy at this point to paint Japan as re-militarising, increasingly extremist, and unwilling to resolve disputes diplomatically.
It makes me wonder, is the gain in domestic support really worth the loss of respect in Asia? Then again, does this political posturing really have any impact on trade?
EDIT: Reading the paper this morning, while Abe managed to push this through through the government, it isn't riding well at all with the public: Polls suggest public support for the Abe cabinet has dropped under 50%, with 54.4% disagreeing with the move, and only 34.6% agreeing. Its kind of nice to know the Peace Constitution is valued by the Japanese people, and this raises some questions over the validity of Abe's actions; however, I'd like to think that the Japanese people don't in principal object to the idea of shooting down missiles en-route to their allies..
Here, collective defence means providing military force in defence of an ally. What does this mean in real terms, though? I think its fair to say that if a nation allied to Japan came under attack, that the Japanese government would be quick to forget the peace constitution and make ready to commit troops anyway, where such a conflict was endangering Japanese security. One example often touted by the media is the new ability for Japan to shoot down missiles from (for example) N. Korea, that were headed for an allied country (i.e. the USA). I would conjecture that even without the reinterpretation of the constitution that Japan would do this, because it cant risk losing face to America because of its dependence on the US for trade, and it could easily justify the action after the fact. The same goes for any conflict involving major trading partners.
In this light, the reinterpretation seems very much like what Japan has been continually doing: posturing. There is overwhelming support among the political parties of Japan for the reinterpretation, and so we can probably assume that (for example) shooting down a couple of North Korean missiles would be received relatively positively over here, regardless of the constitution. The real power of the changes is political: PM Shinzo Abe will gain a fair amount of domestic support from this move.
The problem with such reinterpretation of the constitution is the same problem with Japan that it has always had from posturing: international relations. China and S. Korea have both objected to the change, and the reinterpretation of the peace constitution provides a tempting foundation upon which to criticise Japan. It would be easy at this point to paint Japan as re-militarising, increasingly extremist, and unwilling to resolve disputes diplomatically.
It makes me wonder, is the gain in domestic support really worth the loss of respect in Asia? Then again, does this political posturing really have any impact on trade?
EDIT: Reading the paper this morning, while Abe managed to push this through through the government, it isn't riding well at all with the public: Polls suggest public support for the Abe cabinet has dropped under 50%, with 54.4% disagreeing with the move, and only 34.6% agreeing. Its kind of nice to know the Peace Constitution is valued by the Japanese people, and this raises some questions over the validity of Abe's actions; however, I'd like to think that the Japanese people don't in principal object to the idea of shooting down missiles en-route to their allies..
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
C25K, cardiovascular risk, and running in the morning
My wife's first words to me this morning were "You shouldn't run in the morning, it increases your risk of stroke" - in the background a man in a white lab-coat gesticulated on the TV, but I didn't stop to listen*.
The reason for this permutation of the words "good morning, treasured soul-mate" is my recent foray into exercise, particularly the morning run which I've incorporated into my week in an attempt to make my body more resistant to the risk factors incurred by my inability to peel myself away from a computer screen.
In particular, I've gone through the podcast-based "C25K" training program, with some minor alterations**. My main aim here was to bring my resting heart rate to a more reasonable level (I measured 90 or so, which is right on the upper limit of normal), so I recorded it the whole time I was doing the program.
For the record, heart rate is a pretty strong indicator of cardiac risk, and being at the high end is probably not what you want, especially when you factor in the proportion of deaths due to cardiovascular problems in developed countries.
So what did I find? The C25K program was effective at reducing my heart rate. I'm not sure by exactly how much, however, due to my somewhat inconsistent method for taking my pulse (I became more fussy about when I took my pulse in the latter half of the program, which is probably a big source of bias considering how much my pulse changes during the day). Nonetheless, maybe I reduced my pulse by 10 beats per minute or so, 20 beats per minute at the most.
Using the diagrams on the previous link ("High heart rate: a cardiovascular risk factor?" - Cook et al. 2006), that corresponds to a reduction in risk of heart failure by anything up to 50%. Given the reduced cardiovascular risk, I'm fairly sure I'm better off running, and risking a morning stroke, than not running at all. I cant run in the day because it is simply too hot***, and I don't fancy running in the evening on a belly full of dinner, or in the dark*4*.
While I had a hard time finding any evidence to the contrary*5*, I just managed to dig up this paper, which states that "the protective effects of exercise were more significant in the afternoon and evening group than in the morning and forenoon group". This sounds fair enough to me: its not a bad idea to run in the morning, but its likely a better idea to run in the afternoon.
*TV/radio knowledge is somewhere behind oral tradition in my mental filing cabinet. In my mind, anything heard on a program not even ostensibly about science means nothing more than something to perhaps look up on the internet later. Of course, the internet can be far, far worse, but at least you can find peer-reviewed science on it.
**specifically, I juggled around the order of the runs slightly so that the length of the runs increased more linearly. Those familiar with C25K will remember looking at week 5 and thinking "WTF!?". I recommend juggling around the days as you see fit: the person who made C25K doesn't appear to have had any formal health/exercise qualifications at the time he designed the program, so I can't imagine you'll do yourself any additional harm by applying logic, especially since it will make the progression less intense.
*** To me, this sounds like a damn good way of getting heat stroke.
*4* And this, a pretty good way of distributing my brain on the bottom of an irrigation ditch. Morbid? Me? Noo...
*5* Maybe more due to lack of familiarity with the subject than an actual lack of evidence
The reason for this permutation of the words "good morning, treasured soul-mate" is my recent foray into exercise, particularly the morning run which I've incorporated into my week in an attempt to make my body more resistant to the risk factors incurred by my inability to peel myself away from a computer screen.
In particular, I've gone through the podcast-based "C25K" training program, with some minor alterations**. My main aim here was to bring my resting heart rate to a more reasonable level (I measured 90 or so, which is right on the upper limit of normal), so I recorded it the whole time I was doing the program.
For the record, heart rate is a pretty strong indicator of cardiac risk, and being at the high end is probably not what you want, especially when you factor in the proportion of deaths due to cardiovascular problems in developed countries.
So what did I find? The C25K program was effective at reducing my heart rate. I'm not sure by exactly how much, however, due to my somewhat inconsistent method for taking my pulse (I became more fussy about when I took my pulse in the latter half of the program, which is probably a big source of bias considering how much my pulse changes during the day). Nonetheless, maybe I reduced my pulse by 10 beats per minute or so, 20 beats per minute at the most.
Using the diagrams on the previous link ("High heart rate: a cardiovascular risk factor?" - Cook et al. 2006), that corresponds to a reduction in risk of heart failure by anything up to 50%. Given the reduced cardiovascular risk, I'm fairly sure I'm better off running, and risking a morning stroke, than not running at all. I cant run in the day because it is simply too hot***, and I don't fancy running in the evening on a belly full of dinner, or in the dark*4*.
While I had a hard time finding any evidence to the contrary*5*, I just managed to dig up this paper, which states that "the protective effects of exercise were more significant in the afternoon and evening group than in the morning and forenoon group". This sounds fair enough to me: its not a bad idea to run in the morning, but its likely a better idea to run in the afternoon.
*TV/radio knowledge is somewhere behind oral tradition in my mental filing cabinet. In my mind, anything heard on a program not even ostensibly about science means nothing more than something to perhaps look up on the internet later. Of course, the internet can be far, far worse, but at least you can find peer-reviewed science on it.
**specifically, I juggled around the order of the runs slightly so that the length of the runs increased more linearly. Those familiar with C25K will remember looking at week 5 and thinking "WTF!?". I recommend juggling around the days as you see fit: the person who made C25K doesn't appear to have had any formal health/exercise qualifications at the time he designed the program, so I can't imagine you'll do yourself any additional harm by applying logic, especially since it will make the progression less intense.
*** To me, this sounds like a damn good way of getting heat stroke.
*4* And this, a pretty good way of distributing my brain on the bottom of an irrigation ditch. Morbid? Me? Noo...
*5* Maybe more due to lack of familiarity with the subject than an actual lack of evidence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)