 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / June 2004Update to my summer goals
Well, I stated a few weeks ago that I set some summer goals for myself. I wanted to lose about 10-15lbs and see how hard it is to maintain that weight, and in doing so, focus on muscle retention as well. So far so good, I've been getting back into the swing of things with the gym, and my work schedule is returning to normal. (although I just got work that we are going to have to expand again, which means another buildout and another chaotic fall). So, the weight training thing is getting back on track. And I'm finally getting back into the swing with the food. Funny, DH can simply cut out the snacking on chips and junk and drop 2lbs in a week. Not fair! :) For me it does take alot more dedication. So, the goal of getting to 120 is on its way. Now, to shake things up a bit. I just booked tickets to go visit Determined in September and we are going to hike Mt. Rainer. Now, this FL girl who is used to being at sea level and no hills needs to train for hiking at 7000' altitude and hills/mountain trails. Can my knee do it?!! My knee is still on the mend, and I haven't returned to running or stair climbing because I can still feel it when I do have to step up or down slopes. So, I'm going to alter my goals a bit for the summer - and begin some cross training to prepare myself for this weekend in September. Still working towards 120, still trying to retain muscle mass, but now to cross train. Any tips for a flatlander to crosstrain for mountain hiking? (other than working on the stair climber and eliptical) JayJay wrote: >Now, to shake things up a bit. I just booked tickets to go visit >Determined in September and we are going to hike Mt. Rainer. Now, >this FL girl who is used to being at sea level and no hills needs to >train for hiking at 7000' altitude and hills/mountain trails. Wow, that's my neck of the woods. Are you planning to hike Rainier? Or to climb it? beeswing >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >beeswing Hiking... not climbing. I'm not in shape for climbing right now. :) 7000 feet is not that high. If you are in a good CV shape, you should be able to adapt to 7000 feet. For me, difficulties begin at about 9-10,000 feet. Losing 10 lbs in just 3 months, when you are already pretty slim, is quite audacious, in my opinion. Why the hurry? i > 7000 feet is not that high. If you are in a good CV shape, > you should be able to adapt to 7000 feet. For me, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > i It is if you're used to sea level! I actually blew out a capillary in my eye going from San Jose to Lake Tahoe, which was about 7500 feet (south side). And I was in pretty good shape then (40 pounds lighter than I am now). I felt fine in a day or so, but it surprised me (so did the Grand Canyon--out of breath in a hurry). >> 7000 feet is not that high. If you are in a good CV shape, >> you should be able to adapt to 7000 feet. For me, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >so, but it surprised me (so did the Grand Canyon--out of breath >in a hurry). We've just been going thru this with the Stanley Cup finals. Tampa Bay Lightening vs. Calgary Flames. You could certainly see the efforts of the lightening diminishing just after a couple minutes of playtime on the ice. They were giving them oxygen in order to help their recovery. During the finals, they had a couple commentary reports regarding the affects of altitude on the human body.... For those who live at sea level and head up to higher elevations, it is a big deal and you can tire much more easily. I also noticed this when we went to the grand canyon, or even when we head up to North Carolina to those mountains. Generally day 1 I'm ok. But I'll wipe myself out on the first day and find recovery harder on day 2, and that I have to rest more often. >> 7000 feet is not that high. If you are in a good CV shape, >> you should be able to adapt to 7000 feet. For me, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >so, but it surprised me (so did the Grand Canyon--out of breath >in a hurry). I've been at over 15000 feet in the Andes, and it was not fun - I reacted extremely badly to the altitude. 7000 feet should be fine though, I was able to walk quite happily at that height. janice >>> 7000 feet is not that high. If you are in a good CV shape, >>> you should be able to adapt to 7000 feet. For me, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > reacted extremely badly to the altitude. 7000 feet should be fine > though, I was able to walk quite happily at that height. I was at 13,000 feet and felt somewhat dizzy. My sister, who was with me on Mt Evans in Colorado, was much worse though. i >>> 7000 feet is not that high. If you are in a good CV >>> shape, you should be able to adapt to 7000 feet. For me, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > janice I think generally, altitude sickness over 10,000 feet, though it might vary by age, condition, etc. When I was at the Grand Canyon, some 15-yearold kid had to be carried up on a stretcher because he hike halfway down the gorge and couldn't breathe coming backup. He had no health problems, except maybe youthful excuberance. >I think generally, altitude sickness over 10,000 feet, though >it might vary by age, condition, etc. When I was at the Grand >Canyon, some 15-yearold kid had to be carried up on a >stretcher because he hike halfway down the gorge and couldn't >breathe coming backup. He had no health problems, except maybe >youthful excuberance. I'm not sure what all the factors are in this. I once attended a conference at Breckenridge ski resort in Colorado, which is at aroudn 9500 feet. I was at close to my max weight then, as I recall, but I had no problem walking around town or anything. Others who appeared to be much more fit had a lot more difficulty with it. I wonder if habituation to altitude is something that stays with you at all. I lived several years as a child in Albuquerque, which is around 5000 ft. When I was in my 20s (and heavier than now, though far less than my peak) we visited Peru -- including Cuzco and Macchu Picchu. I had little difficulty with the altitude. (Cuzco is around 11,500, I think. Macchu Picchu is a bit less.) Chris I visited Mt Evans and hiked near it two times, at about same level of fitness. The second time was considerably easier. i >>I think generally, altitude sickness over 10,000 feet, >>though it might vary by age, condition, etc. When I was at [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Chris I think habituation is a factor. How many Kenyans have won the Boston marathon now? A lot. And they are by no means the world's greatest athletes. But they live and train at (no sure exactly) 13000 feet all year, so running near sea level is less stressful for their lungs. SO is being 120 pounds soaking wet, but that may be a different topic! >janice@london.uk (janice) wrote >> >> I've been at over 15000 feet in the Andes, and it was not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >breathe coming backup. He had no health problems, except maybe >youthful excuberance. I believe it has to do with your red blood cells and the amount of oxygen in your blood. It doesn't seem to be related to age or any other factors that I could see. In the Andes, all of us in the group reacted differently, but I seemed to suffer more than anyone else. People who live there have larger chest areas and more lung capacity, I believe. janice who won't be going to Nepal >>>> 7000 feet is not that high. If you are in a good CV >>>> shape, you should be able to adapt to 7000 feet. For me, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >breathe coming backup. He had no health problems, except maybe >youthful excuberance. I'm not so worried about altitude sickness as I am just exhaustion at a much quicker rate than I'm used to. For someone who lives at sea level and generally doesn't get much higher than maybe 25' above sealevel in my normal day to day life. (forinstance, here at work we are at 12' above sea level, and we only have 1 floor. At home we are 8' above sea level, likewise, single story home). For someone like me, travelling to 4000 can be a big change. Not that I'll get sick, but I'm sure my exhaustion levels will be higher, which will in effect, slow me down, require me to take more frequent rests for recovery. >>>>> 7000 feet is not that high. If you are in a good CV >>>>> shape, you should be able to adapt to 7000 feet. For [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > will be higher, which will in effect, slow me down, require > me to take more frequent rests for recovery. Yes, but it's a progressive thing that probably starts with breathing trouble. It's really kind of scary, like if you've ever being swimming in a current then turned around are realized how much harded you had to work to make any progress. At altitude, you breath the same but feel winded. >Yes, but it's a progressive thing that probably starts with >breathing trouble. It's really kind of scary, like if you've >ever being swimming in a current then turned around are >realized how much harded you had to work to make any progress. >At altitude, you breath the same but feel winded. Yes, and something I have experienced before when I've gone to the altitudes like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and even the Carolinas. Which is what I posted about to begin with, and was dismissed by iggy as being something I shouldn't worry about at 7000 ft. But let me tell you - even our Tampa lightening where hitting the oxygen tanks during the stanley cup finals at 3000' in calgary as they were feeling the effects of the altitude they were not used to and were fatiguing quicker than usual, so they kept their ice time short so that they could rest and recover and not wear out. In game 3, the first in calgary, you could really see the affects on the players as the game progressed and their play went downhill. > >Yes, but it's a progressive thing that probably starts with > >breathing trouble. It's really kind of scary, like if you've [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Which is what I posted about to begin with, and was dismissed by iggy > as being something I shouldn't worry about at 7000 ft. Well of course, your personal experience is meaningless... > But let me tell you - even our Tampa lightening where hitting the > oxygen tanks during the stanley cup finals at 3000' in calgary as they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > first in calgary, you could really see the affects on the players as > the game progressed and their play went downhill. It's the same thing when the NFL teams play in Denver, they're always using oxygen *and* the play is different. It's what you're used to. I have trouble with altitude too and I'm not really sure how to get acclimated more quickly because I'd like to mountain hiking in Alaska when we finally go there. We've been doing more hill climbing around here, but the mountains are pretty much molehills here in the upper midwest. At least I'm getting my leg muscles ready. If I come across anything useful, I'll let you know. Jenn >It's the same thing when the NFL teams play in Denver, they're always using >oxygen *and* the play is different. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Jenn I live in the Denver Metro area, and I can tell you that altitude is nothing to mess with. Typically "altitude sickness" happens at 8000' or higher, however any altitude can have an adverse effect, especially under exertion. My family just came to do the 10k road race here and they did fine, though slower then if they were home. I had them fly out a few days before the race to acclimate. I had them *constantly* drink water and we did mild walking for the days before the race. The big thing is that at altitude it is incredibly easy to become dehydrated. If you are thirsty, you're in trouble. It means you are dehydrated. I found a couple of articles that may help: http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/altitude/a/042004.htm How to prepare for high altitude vacations http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/altitude/a/aa100802a.htm How to recognize, prevent and treat symptoms of high altitude illness (AMS) http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/altitude.html High altitude and athletic training http://www.frugalfun.com/altitude.html Preparing for High Altitude Travel and Recreation I live at over a mile high, and I still get headaches when driving through the mountains. Also, it's a different story when trying to scramble up rocks at 12000'. Talk about winded after a few steps.... :-) Ally 212/181/160 > If you are thirsty, you're in trouble. It means you are > dehydrated. I have a friend of a friend stationed in Bagdad. The saying there is: If you're thirsty, it's too late! (I don't even want to discuss the "Bagdad Boil"--google if you want to be grossed out.) > But let me tell you - even our Tampa lightening where > hitting the oxygen tanks during the stanley cup finals at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > players as the game progressed and their play went > downhill. Although I think it has more impact in hockey and football, I watched my Red Sox play for the first time ever in Denver last night, and with a powerful lineup against lousy pitchers and a team that had lost eight straight, they looked awful! They left something like 12 runners on base. I used to live in North Carolina, but near sea level. One trip I made to the mountains with my cousin to see the Biltmore estate reminded me of altitude changes. Just walking around the grounds there exhausted us. There's a lot of ground to cover if you want to see the incredible gardens, but it's mostly flat! >I used to live in North Carolina, but near sea level. One >trip I made to the mountains with my cousin to see the >Biltmore estate reminded me of altitude changes. Just walking >around the grounds there exhausted us. There's a lot of ground >to cover if you want to see the incredible gardens, but it's >mostly flat! Been there. We try to get up to that area about once a year. Although our vacations have been taking us elsewhere the past couple years, so its now been 2 yrs since we got up to that area. For us, its a nice, close (only a 10hr drive) vacation getaway from the fl heat in the summers. >Losing 10 lbs in just 3 months, when you are already >pretty slim, is quite audacious, in my opinion. Why the hurry? 1.2lbs a week, what is wrong with that? Oh, and there really is no hurry. It was just a goal I set this summer as something to strive for. If it doesn't happen, the world won't end and I won't be upset. >>Losing 10 lbs in just 3 months, when you are already >>pretty slim, is quite audacious, in my opinion. Why the hurry? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > summer as something to strive for. If it doesn't happen, the world > won't end and I won't be upset. You are pretty slim, if you still look like the person on the pre-wedding picture you posted. So, for a slim person, losing 1.2 lbs per week is more, relatively speaking, than the same amount for a very fat person. So, you have an "audacious" goal, in my opinion, but maybe you can actually accomplish it! i > You are pretty slim, if you still look like the person on the > pre-wedding picture you posted. So, for a slim person, losing 1.2 lbs > per week is more, relatively speaking, than the same amount for a very > fat person. So, you have an "audacious" goal, in my opinion, but maybe > you can actually accomplish it! Well, lets look at reality. 1.2lbs. That's really cutting out 500 cals a day. Now that is easily accomplished by surely an hours with of cardio a day. (depending on the intensity). But since I already do that. Then 500 calories can be made up of a decrease in food and an increase in exercise somewhere. Getting back to weight training is beneficial, 3 days a week of that and decreasing by about 300 cals a day and I've easily got my deficit needed. And 300 cals a day - well, that's easily done by cutting out my evening meal and substituting it for a salad or yogurt/fruit/fiber. And in the summer I don't want to eat heavy anyway. So, it shouldn't be *too* difficult. Although that is easier said than done. If I put dedication, determination and will together, I can do it. >> You are pretty slim, if you still look like the person on the >> pre-wedding picture you posted. So, for a slim person, losing 1.2 lbs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, lets look at reality. 1.2lbs. That's really cutting out 500 cals a > day. 600 cals to be exact... > Now that is easily accomplished by surely an hours with of cardio a > day. (depending on the intensity). But since I already do that. Then [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So, it shouldn't be *too* difficult. Although that is easier said than > done. If I put dedication, determination and will together, I can do it. Well, let's see how it goes, even if you only lose, say, 7 lbs by the end of summer, it will be a decently spent summer, dietwise. i >600 cals to be exact... oh hell - there goes my mini reeses daily afternoon treat ... :-) ** as you can see, exactisms are not something I focus on** :-) >Well, let's see how it goes, even if you only lose, say, 7 lbs by the >end of summer, it will be a decently spent summer, dietwise. Yup. Or, even if I only lose 5, but lose 3' off my thighs at the same time then it would still be a decent summer. :-) This is more or less an experiment. Something to keep me entertained, so to speak. My son is spending alot of time with his father for June/July which means I have free time on my hands, and instead of spending it in front of a computer screen, I'll spend it doing something active. See, my history of weight is one of being pretty skinny while growing up. In highschool I would fluctuate between 100 - 110lbs. (5'1") Wearing a size 1-2 to a size 5-6 in clothing. After the birth of my son I found myself 155 - 160lbs and thighs that were as big as my waist, but I also grew 2 inches and increased my shoe size from a 5 to a 7.5. Divorce diet brought me back to the size 5 pants, didn't own a scale, but my guesses were the high 1teens area. Post divorce comfort, stress, medical issues, brought me back to 145 before I began my revolution in ASD. In the 5yrs I've been here I haven't had a great deal to lose, but the change in eating habits and exercise lifestyle has been dramatic. (for example, used to eat McD's for lunch 5 times a week ) All that took place in a span of 5 yrs. During my stay in ASD, my low was about 1.5 yrs ago at 122. Then I decided to go on a bulking cycle to increase muscle mass. In the course of the next 6 months I went to 130. Then I stayed at 128-130 until last February. I returned from the 3.5 week wedding/honeymoon at 133, but with an injured knee. I was thrown into a really stressful workload where I was putting in 65 - 75 hrs a week until about 4 weeks ago. Now I'm down to about 55hrs a week. But during that time of stress and knee injury I did get back up to 140+ at one point before got serious about things again. Anyhow, the plus side to all my work on my body was that at 140lbs I was not in size 10 clothes like I had been 5 yrs ago. I was my larger size 6, and my size 8 clothes. My muscle mass has increased alot over the past 1.5yrs. Right now at the low 130's my size 6 pants fit wonderfully. What I'd like to do is get back down to 120 or a bit below and see how hard it is to maintain that weight. When I was there at the point of my divorce it was very hard to maintain that weight without having to make serious food sacrifices. (skipping meals, etc) but that was also because I'd lost it so rapidly that I had lost alot of muscle. The last time I was at 122 (almost 2yrs ago) the maintenance was fairly easy, although my comfort ranged seemed to be more of the 125. I had a hard time bulking at first. That is why it took me 6 months to gain to 128. (in the end I got sick (cold/flu) and would pass out if I didn't eat every couple hours). So, this is just a bit of something to do to see how it works out. If I get down to 120 again and its too hard to maintain without alot of sacrifices, then I'll probably find a good setpoint to stay at. >>600 cals to be exact... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > instead of spending it in front of a computer screen, I'll spend it > doing something active. sounds like a great idea. > See, my history of weight is one of being pretty skinny while growing > up. In highschool I would fluctuate between 100 - 110lbs. (5'1") [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lifestyle has been dramatic. (for example, used to eat McD's for > lunch 5 times a week ) All that took place in a span of 5 yrs. It is good that you never allowed yourself to become very fat. > During my stay in ASD, my low was about 1.5 yrs ago at 122. Then I > decided to go on a bulking cycle to increase muscle mass. In the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stressful workload where I was putting in 65 - 75 hrs a week until > about 4 weeks ago. Now I'm down to about 55hrs a week. Scary stuff, I hope to never work so much again... > But during that time of stress and knee injury I did get back up to > 140+ at one point before got serious about things again. Oh, I see now. > Anyhow, the plus side to all my work on my body was that at 140lbs I > was not in size 10 clothes like I had been 5 yrs ago. I was my > larger size 6, and my size 8 clothes. My muscle mass has increased > alot over the past 1.5yrs. Right now at the low 130's my size 6 > pants fit wonderfully. Then I am hypothesizing, you must look pretty good now, as far as I am concerned. > What I'd like to do is get back down to 120 or a bit below and see how > hard it is to maintain that weight. When I was there at the point > of my divorce it was very hard to maintain that weight without having > to make serious food sacrifices. (skipping meals, etc) but that was > also because I'd lost it so rapidly that I had lost alot of muscle. Yeah, for me, also, it is easier to eat more and exercise more. > If I get down to 120 again and its too hard to maintain without alot > of sacrifices, then I'll probably find a good setpoint to stay at. Your physical fitness gives you quite a bit of "wiggle room"... Which is good for you. i > It is good that you never allowed yourself to become very fat. at 5'3", yes, techincally 155 - 160 is fat. It may not be obese, but I believe it also borderlines obesity based on BMI. >> It is good that you never allowed yourself to become very fat. > > at 5'3", yes, techincally 155 - 160 is fat. It may not be obese, but I > believe it also borderlines obesity based on BMI. Still, it is good that you did not become any fatter... i > >> It is good that you never allowed yourself to become very fat. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > i you are correct, obesity runs in my family and my sister topped out over 200lbs with all 3 of her kids. My mom is currently up close to 200. My mom's mom has always been overweight/obese. (my dad's mom on the other hand has always been petite - and I hope that I got more of her genes than the other side). My dad's mom was 5'4" in her prime and always very slender. Me, I'm the shortest in the family - at 5'3". Mom, sister and the other grandma are all over 5'6" tall. But being heavy was not comfortable for me and not something I liked, and I knew I had to do something about it. But let me tell you - going from the stringbean kid who could live on twinkies and coke and oreo cookies and McDonalds, it was very hard to adjust to better eating habits. :) > you are correct, obesity runs in my family and my sister topped out over > 200lbs with all 3 of her kids. My mom is currently up close to 200. My [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > slender. Me, I'm the shortest in the family - at 5'3". Mom, sister and > the other grandma are all over 5'6" tall. Sounds like you are perhaps a "naturally fat" person, who would stay fat if not for dieting and exercising. > But being heavy was not comfortable for me and not something I liked, and I > knew I had to do something about it. But let me tell you - going from the > stringbean kid who could live on twinkies and coke and oreo cookies and > McDonalds, it was very hard to adjust to better eating habits. :) You have done a great job so far in fact, and have a decent attitude about your weight, also. i > > you are correct, obesity runs in my family and my sister topped out over > > 200lbs with all 3 of her kids. My mom is currently up close to 200. My [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sounds like you are perhaps a "naturally fat" person, who would stay > fat if not for dieting and exercising. um, no, I don't think so... If I were "naturally fat" person, they I'd have struggle with my weight all my life like some of my other family members. I didn't have a weight problem until pregnancy. I didn't struggle to lose it, I just didn't have to motivation or will to lose it, but I never did gain more. Once I get to a point, (well, asside from the dramatic divorce weight loss plan) generally I don't have a problem maintaining weight. >> > you are correct, obesity runs in my family and my sister topped out over >> > 200lbs with all 3 of her kids. My mom is currently up close to 200. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > problem until pregnancy. I didn't struggle to lose it, I just didn't have > to motivation or will to lose it, but I never did gain more. Oh, I see. Did your mom have a problem with weight before pregnancy? Anyway, good job. i >Once I get to a point, (well, aside from the dramatic divorce weight loss >plan) generally I don't have a problem maintaining weight. I can understand that, even if Ig can't. I'm apparently the same way. beeswing > x-no-archive: yes > >>Once I get to a point, (well, aside from the dramatic divorce weight loss >>plan) generally I don't have a problem maintaining weight. > > I can understand that, even if Ig can't. I'm apparently the same way. "Problem maintaining weight" is a phrase with many meanings. For example, person A finds maintaining weight easy subjectively, but gains 10 lbs occasionally and then loses the new extra weight. Person B finds maintaining weight harder emotionally, but keeps her weight stable. Which of them has a "problem maintaining weight"? My answer is that both of them found what works for them, in the long run. i >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >i I believe in a 10 lb range. As any given day my weight can fluctuation by 5lbs or more depending on food and hydration levels. Maintaining in a 5lb range for me is what I am referring to. >> >> It is good that you never allowed yourself to become >> >> very fat. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > McDonalds, it was very hard to adjust to better eating > habits. :) No poptarts? Other than Oreos, that was my 'drug of choice!' >No poptarts? Other than Oreos, that was my 'drug of choice!' oh, yeah.. poptarts too. Although I prefer them toasted not raw. Smores poptarts are yummy... But now I look at a packet of poptarts and the first thing I think of is, why should I waste 1/3 of my daily calorie intake on something that won't keep me statisfied. :) Then again - back then, with my metabolism, it probably only accounted for less than 1/4 my daily intake. Re: preparation for hiking 7000 feet. If you own a gas mask and a treadmill at home, try practicing some cardio with a gas mask on. It is a standard practice in the military. i |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.