I used to teach at an FE College and had two very different groups of students – nursing students, who were amongst the most motivated students I have ever come across. They were a joy to work with, paid attention, asked sensible questions and really seemed interested. The other group of students were doing an HND in Biological Sciences and they couldn't have been more different – most were disinterested and just seemed to be in out of the rain – quite frustrating. I think you're right that the level of interest of your students can make all the difference to how rewarding the job can be. I never felt attracted to teaching in school, since at least in further/higher education, if the students don't really want to be there, then they are (generally) adults and that is their responsibility rather than yours.

Hmmm, don't know if this is very helpful!

Thanks Juan – you're nice :D

Glen More – you can get a good idea if the maximum value you are seeing on your HRM is a true value by watching the response over time. As you are climbing the hill, does your HR increase fairly steadily up to 195 beats per minute – if so, it is likely to be real. If your HR suddenly shoots up to 195 beats per minute, an increase of more than a few beats per minute in the time it takes your HRM to update, then I would be a bit more suspicious – more likely to be some kind of interference to the signal. Depends on the hill though – the above would be true for a fairly steady climb – HR can increase in bigger jumps with a sharp increase in gradient.

Variability around the 220 – age prediction is around 20 beats per minute so it's perfectly normal to record a maximum heart rate 15 beats per minute above your predicted value. If you've recorded it, and it's not just a blip in your technology then it is your true maximum.

Hi Mark,

Thanks so much for taking the time to update us all. It seems to me that you're doing fantastically well under extremely tough circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree with TN that there's no need to rush. Your scar will look "angry" for a fair while but will eventually settle down and you'll not really notice it. I felt the same way for a few months, showering and getting dressed was an exercise in distracting myself from the big slash down my front and it was a while before I could bring myself to wear V necks … but now, I barely notice it, and when I do it makes me feel strong. Sometimes I wonder why other people are staring at my chest (yes, I am a girl, but I can assure you they are not staring for that reason ;o) and it takes me a few seconds to realise they're wondering what my story is. You will just forget about it in time, but I'm sure that will just happen naturally.

Delighted to hear how well you are doing walking wise – I think you are leaps and bounds ahead of most people so soon after heart surgery. Chapeau!

All the best,
Rona

For reliability in HRMs Polar is a good choice. Have used various models over the years for work and personal use with very few problems. If you want a GPS model you are likely looking at one which requires a chest strap though. Polar now have fully fabric chest straps (WearLink) rather than the ones with the hard plastic front section. The newer straps provide a much better fit for the smaller person, and are also available in a small size. They do a couple of GPS sensors which are compatible with various monitors … http://www.polar.fi/en/

I have a Tacx Flow trainer which is electromagnetically braked. You can vary the work rate in watts – although it's not hugely accurate in terms of real work rate. Don't think that would make too much difference for every day training though. I also have the virtual reality upgrade for this trainer (have spent a lot of time on it!), which is great. You can get some real life videos and pedal through Mallorca, Milan-San Remo etc. and have nice scenery to "ride through". It also increases and decreases resistance as you climb or descend making it a bit more interesting. Works fine with an mtb too. I prefer the Tacx to the Computrainer – not nearly as fiddly to use, although the Computrainer is more accurate (but also more expensive). I didn't get on with rollers at all – as someone else mentioned, I found too much concentration required, and my shoulders and arms would get pretty tense so that I would have to stop training for that reason rather than being tired. Maybe just a bit crap at the whole balance thing though.

My chest, my beautiful strong chest that I loved is no more.

Mark, I felt the same after OHS. I thought I would never feel strong or healthy or whole again … but you will. Whenever I catch sight of my scar or feel some discomfort in my chest, it just reminds me of how strong I was to get through. I hope this helps. I know you have so much more than a broken chest to contend with and I am willing you on.

Hello Mark, Glad to hear things are progressing, and also that you have set a date for your wedding – congratulations to you both. Just wanted to say – open heart surgery is not so bad. The anticipation for me was so much worse than the reality. You'll be up and about within a couple of days, albeit with an elephant sat on your chest for a little while. Wishing you all the best for a speedy recovery. Rona

Thanks all.

CCC – thanks for making it to Drumlanrig and glad you enjoyed it. It was great to see so many people there. I just had to ride those roots – at least they were dry at that point! Whenever I used to bottle anything, Andy would make me try again and I usually surprised myself at what I could ride. He was a great influence.

Bazza – that was a great Mayhem – maybe not at the time (!) but one of the most memorable. We would have REALLY struggled without you and Chris. Andy was so pleased that it was a couple of fast guys who turned up! Thanks for joining us – it was a real pleasure.

mrsflash – glad you had a good day – we really appreciated that you made the trip up – and thanks for the support … just trying to get through in a way that would make Andy proud.

Simon – thanks for your kind words. I didn’t know the mag was dedicated to Andy – that’s good to hear and his family will be pleased to hear that too. Looking forward to riding with you guys again in the not too distant future.

misterfrostie – Andy would be glad to hear you were out pushing boundaries in his memory. He would often tell me I wasn’t trying hard enough if I came home with no bruises or scrapes. He felt the same way about you guys. Singletraction guys rock!

Thanks all for your kind words about Andy – he was just truly an awesome rider and all round great guy. I miss him terribly – but Andy was also the most positive, determined and enthusiastic person I have ever met and I am trying to follow his example and stay as positive as possible.

misterfrostie – I’ve sent you an e-mail to the address in your profile.

All the best,
Rona

Well done mboy your question has sufficient info to work, Graham the problem with your question is that it leaves a single unknown which you need to be a double unknown thus allowing a logical approach to determine the outcome with a (incorrect in reality but correct for your question) probability of 50%. Your question works if worded as ‘what are the odds she had a daughter first’. That way there isn’t a logical approach that can correctly get the incorrect answer. Anyway that helped get it over 300 so that’ll do!

:-)

Andy.

indeed!

Neither of you appear to be able to read an entire answer.

The probability of mixed sex out of boy-girl, girl-boy and girl-girl is clearly 66%, the problem is the wording of the original question.

Which statement do you think is incorrect:
In the original question there is a child of unknown gender.
The probability of an unknown child being a boy or a girl is 50%.
The gender of the unknown child determines whether the woman has mixed or same sex children.

If it’s the middle one then that means the gender of the female child influences the gender of the unknown child.

Andy.

because its good fun!

“How is this any different to the question with the children?”

It’s different because the order of the children is not an issue in the original question whereas the species is in yours, you don’t need to determine the order to know whether she has boy-girl or girl-girl. All you need to do in this example is determine the gender of the unknown child and this tells you whether she has boy-girl or girl-girl.

The problem is the information in the question, not that the probability of boy-girl vs either same gender combo isn’t 2:1 a point you seem to be missing.

Andy.

“As soon as you know the sex of one of the pets for certain, the sex of the other then becomes 50:50, and that is where the mistake lies, you just don’t know the sex of either child in the original puzzle, all you know that one of them is a girl. The girl could be child A, or it could be child B, or it could be both of them, but you just don’t know.”

That’s irrelevant and that’s the problem, the original question requires you to know that they aren’t both boys but at the same time not to know that one of them is a girl – something which can’t be done when you say one of them is a girl. As soon as you know one of them is a girl you can determine whether or not the women has and boy and a girl or a girl and a girl by knowing the answer to ‘what is the gender of the other child’ as this is a question with a 50:50 outcome the probability of her having a boy as the other child becomes a 50:50 coutcome etc. . .

It isn’t possible to word the original question in a subtle enough way for the above logic not to work, i.e. as the answer to my question above will correctly tell you whether the woman has two girls or a boy and a girl the probability of the possible outcomes is the probability that she has a girl and a boy. If you have a stituation where you know that the kids weren’t boy-boy but were none the wiser beyond that the probability of boy-girl (or girl-boy) becomes 66%.

Andy.

We’re nearly there!

If you are stood in front of this hypothetical woman who you know has one girl and another child and think to yourself ‘what are the odds she has a girl and a boy’ you can work through the probability logic already laid out nicely and get 66% or you can consider that as determining the gender of the other child determines whether she has a girl and a boy and as the probability of the other child being a boy is 50% that means the probability of her having a girl and a boy is also 50%. Two different ways to view the problem and two different answers. :-)

Andy.

Yes, but why would you ask her the original question? If you were speaking to her you’d ask a much more sensible question which would confirm the probability is 50% :-).

Andy.

It’s been pretty dull.

not too many to go now. . .

Drac, been here a very long time.

Graham,

“What you want to know is whether “she has a girl and a boy?”.

Nope – that’s not what the question asked.”

No, indeed but that’s why probability is only probability, if you ask a different but relevant question to get the information you need you may get a different probability, i.e. as pointed out before the odds that the remaining child is a boy are 50:50 by simply asking that question the probability of her having a girl and a boy are 50:50.

Andy.

Lets get it over 300.

It can be 50%, here’s how.

What you want to know is whether “she has a girl and a boy?”. You can find this out by finding out the gender of both children. As you already know the gender of 1 child you only need to know the gender of the other child. As the only unknown is the gender of 1 child where the two possible outcomes each have a probability of 50% you can determine whether “she has a girl and a boy?” with a probability of 50%.

Andy.

The problem is the over-complicated way the question is being asked. As the gender of one child is already known the remaining and simplest unknown and therefore the only question which needs to be asked is what is the gender of the other child? The answer to this question will answer the original question and has a probability of 50%.

Andy.