Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Second weigh-in

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Madge O'Reene - 10 Jul 2006 08:45 GMT
1st June: 130kg (287 lbs)
23rd June: 117kg (258 lbs)
9th July: 112kg (247 lbs)

And yesterday I receive my first "You look like you've lost weight"
comment from someone other than my partner! This means quite a bit to
me as I've not told anyone (other than my better half and this group)
of my new diet + exercise regime.

I need to up my fitness though, as I've decided I want to start running
each morning from the 1st August. The last time I tried, I couldn't
manage more than 1 minute worth at a time :-s
The Historian - 10 Jul 2006 10:59 GMT
> 1st June: 130kg (287 lbs)
> 23rd June: 117kg (258 lbs)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> me as I've not told anyone (other than my better half and this group)
> of my new diet + exercise regime.

Congratulations!

> I need to up my fitness though, as I've decided I want to start running
> each morning from the 1st August. The last time I tried, I couldn't
> manage more than 1 minute worth at a time :-s

Walk, then run.

Neil
385/309/220
Madge O'Reene - 10 Jul 2006 11:22 GMT
> Congratulations!

Thanks.

> Walk, then run.

Which is why I've gone from about 1 hour walking per week to 5+ hours
walking and between 7 and 12 hours cycling. Weighing 40lbs less should
make the running easier and hopefully I've upped my overall fitness
too. I've made half and hour each morning for exercise (as well as my
lunchtime walk and 30-70 minutes each evening on the bike) and at the
moment I'm maxing out around 400 calories on the exercise bike. I could
go a *little* faster, but I'm already on the max setting for
resistance. By my reckoning, I have the potential to hit 600 calories
in a half hour stint (once I'm fit enough to sustain 30 minutes
running), not to mention the benefit of a more varied exercise regime.
Once I've hit that goal, I'm going to have to work weights in somehow,
but short of compromising something I'm not willing to compromise*, I
reckon I'll only be doing those at weekends.

*My week day is:
5:30 Get up. 30 minutes on the exercise bike. Shower, dress, drive to
work.
12:00 40-80 minute walk.
16:30 Drive home
18:30 Arrive home. Gobble some food down (500 calories worth, maybe a
little more if there are home made cakes on the go, but this is my
total calorific intake for the day)
18:40 Play with my son, then put him to bed around 20:00 or 20:30
depending on how busy his day has been.
20:30 General paperwork to keep my business running + a small share of
household chores.
21:00 Exercise bike (whilst on the Xbox) for 30-70 minutes
22:00-22:30ish Bed

I couldn't sacrifice much more sleep and still be safe to drive for up
to 4 hours each day and there's no way I'd reduce the precious little
time I have with my boy (we all have our limits on the cost/benefit pay
off, and that's a price too high for me), so I guess the only way to up
my exercise is to increase the intensity (hence running in the
mornings). Unless anyone has some insight into how I can improve?
Obviously, weekends are much more open.
The Historian - 10 Jul 2006 11:00 GMT
> 1st June: 130kg (287 lbs)
> 23rd June: 117kg (258 lbs)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> me as I've not told anyone (other than my better half and this group)
> of my new diet + exercise regime.

Congratulations!

> I need to up my fitness though, as I've decided I want to start running
> each morning from the 1st August. The last time I tried, I couldn't
> manage more than 1 minute worth at a time :-s

Walk, then run.

Neil
385/309/220
Annie Benson Lennaman - 10 Jul 2006 18:40 GMT
> 1st June: 130kg (287 lbs)
> 23rd June: 117kg (258 lbs)
> 9th July: 112kg (247 lbs)

   You're making excellent progress!  Have you done the old "Find
something that weighs 40 pounds and lug it around" trick yet?  It's
great for a visceral "Oh, wow!" moment.

> And yesterday I receive my first "You look like you've lost weight"
> comment from someone other than my partner! This means quite a bit to
> me as I've not told anyone (other than my better half and this group)
> of my new diet + exercise regime.

   Congratulations!  I remember when I got my first one of those.  Its
funny, but I seem to get them in stages.  Nothing for a long while, then
a bunch when I lost 30.  Then nothing, then a bunch when I lost 20
more.  Then nothing, then a bunch when I lost 10 more.  Makes me wonder
if there are thresholds were once I lose a certain amount of fat, my
body just looks thinner for some reason.

> I need to up my fitness though, as I've decided I want to start running
> each morning from the 1st August. The last time I tried, I couldn't
> manage more than 1 minute worth at a time :-s

  Careful with that.  I tried alternating jogging with walking and
actually pulled a groin muscle, even though I wasn't running fast or for
very long distances.  That wasn't fun, and I'm nervous about trying it
again.  I'm not saying that will happen to you, of course.  But if you
do start running, pay attention to any soreness in your pelvic area and
stop!  I wish I had.

Signature

Annie

As of 06-30-06: 258/189.5/140  Standing at 5 foot 4.

68.5 pounds lost.  49.5 left to go.  Started February/07/05

Come visit my weight-loss web site, Annie Takes Off.
http://webpages.charter.net/lenny13/DietFrontPage.html

Kirk Is - 10 Jul 2006 19:00 GMT
> > 1st June: 130kg (287 lbs)
> > 23rd June: 117kg (258 lbs)
> > 9th July: 112kg (247 lbs)

>     You're making excellent progress!  Have you done the old "Find
> something that weighs 40 pounds and lug it around" trick yet?  It's
> great for a visceral "Oh, wow!" moment.

One gallon of water = 8.33 lbs.
So one of those big Poland Springs bottles at work, 41.7 lbs...
and man, those suckers are HEAVY. I can barely imagine, say, going for a
jog with one of strapped to my back (or around my gut as the case may be),
and I'm aiming to lose a bit more than that.

So congratulations!

Kirk, 227/213.5/180

Signature

QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com   SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"My favorite is The Invisible Man, because in great scene Invisible Man
eats large bowl of cookies.  All you see are cookies.  No distractions.
Me like that."--Cookie Monster, asked to name Favorite Movie Monster

Kirk Is - 10 Jul 2006 19:30 GMT
> One gallon of water = 8.33 lbs.
> So one of those big Poland Springs bottles at work, 41.7 lbs...
> and man, those suckers are HEAVY. I can barely imagine, say, going for a
> jog with one of strapped to my back (or around my gut as the case may be),
> and I'm aiming to lose a bit more than that.

Heh... a further thought. I came up with that 5 gallons =~ 40 lbs a while
back. But I know that fat is less dense than water. So not only have you
lost that much weight, but those giant 5-gallon jugs also can give you a
lower bound for how much volume you've lost! It's a little difficult
because the loss likely isn't concentrated in one part of the body, but
still, you're taking up that much less space.

Signature

QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com   SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"As they say in my country, the only thing that separates us from the animals
 are mindless superstition and pointless ritual."--Latka Gravas,"Taxi"  

Madge O'Reene - 11 Jul 2006 08:18 GMT
>     You're making excellent progress!
Thanks.

> Have you done the old "Find
> something that weighs 40 pounds and lug it around" trick yet?  It's
> great for a visceral "Oh, wow!" moment.

I hadn't even thought of it, but I will now!

>     Congratulations!  I remember when I got my first one of those.  Its
> funny, but I seem to get them in stages.  Nothing for a long while, then
> a bunch when I lost 30.  Then nothing, then a bunch when I lost 20
> more.  Then nothing, then a bunch when I lost 10 more.  Makes me wonder
> if there are thresholds were once I lose a certain amount of fat, my
> body just looks thinner for some reason.

I reckon people who know me just never thought of me as fat ;)

>    Careful with that.  I tried alternating jogging with walking and
> actually pulled a groin muscle, even though I wasn't running fast or for
> very long distances.  That wasn't fun, and I'm nervous about trying it
> again.  I'm not saying that will happen to you, of course.  But if you
> do start running, pay attention to any soreness in your pelvic area and
> stop!  I wish I had.

Thanks for the advice
Rachael Reynolds - 11 Jul 2006 01:20 GMT
> 1st June: 130kg (287 lbs)
> 23rd June: 117kg (258 lbs)
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> each morning from the 1st August. The last time I tried, I couldn't
> manage more than 1 minute worth at a time :-s

If you are interested in starting running Madge, you might like a look at
this.

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=24
Kirk Is - 11 Jul 2006 02:48 GMT
> If you are interested in starting running Madge, you might like a look at
> this.

> http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=24

Interesting point about treadmills vs outside: "A treadmill 'pulls' the
ground underneath your feet, and you don't meet any wind resistance, which
makes running somewhat easier."

I've had people argue that the two are roughly the same, but I find the
treadmill so much easier, in terms of how it's judging distance ran in a
certain time, that empirically I figure it's just not the same beast. I
mean, if you're really out to avoid exercise, just support yourself with
your arms on the handbars, and just barely ever touch the treadmill
beneath every once in a while... I figure that's just an exagerrated
version of what's really going on, that if you get enough "lift" in your
stride, you're doing less work.

(Of course, when I try to apply my highschool physics to it, I realize
running should be "zero" work, except for air resistance, since your speed
remains constant-ish, which makes me think that my high school physics is
insufficient for thinking about a human running.)

Signature

QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com   SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
PROCRASTINATION "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness
                  always pays off now." --Demotivators, http://despair.com

Madge O'Reene - 11 Jul 2006 08:22 GMT
> (Of course, when I try to apply my highschool physics to it, I realize
> running should be "zero" work, except for air resistance, since your speed
> remains constant-ish, which makes me think that my high school physics is
> insufficient for thinking about a human running.)

LOL, I think you maybe were distracted by the hot girl in your physics
classes and missed some important lessons!
Kirk Is - 11 Jul 2006 13:19 GMT
> > (Of course, when I try to apply my highschool physics to it, I realize
> > running should be "zero" work, except for air resistance, since your speed
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> LOL, I think you maybe were distracted by the hot girl in your physics
> classes and missed some important lessons!

Or by my fundamentalist physics teacher... nah, actually he was a great
teacher and I did really well... it's just that all physics at that level
is like "ok, assume you have an infinite, frictionless plane in a vacuum,
and a non-rotational point mass sliding along it..." It's just one step
away from "assume a spherical cow"!

According to high school physics "no work is done" by weightlifting, since
the weight is returned to its original height and speed with no net change
in kinetic or potential energy.

Signature

QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com   SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
STUPIDITY "Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those that never win
          AND never quit are idiots." --Demotivators, http://despair.com

Nunya B. - 11 Jul 2006 22:29 GMT
>> If you are interested in starting running Madge, you might like a look at
>> this.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> remains constant-ish, which makes me think that my high school physics is
> insufficient for thinking about a human running.)

There's lots of advantages to using a treadmill and lots of reasons not to.
It's a personal preference as long as you're moving. I like my treadmill,
especially from Nov-April when it's cold/snowy/icy and there's not a lot of
room on the roads or much light available when I am.  I also like my
treadmill this week when it's 95 degrees and I can be in the AC.  Having my
treadmill at home also allows me to run in shorts and sports bra, something
I'd never do in public, not even for money.

OTOH, treadmill running seems to be harder on my bad hip.  Outdoor running
feels great when the weather is nice, and it makes less of a mess to dump
water on your head (to cool off) when you're outdoors.  Outdoor running also
allows for variety.
Signature

the volleyballchick

Madge O'Reene - 11 Jul 2006 08:21 GMT
> If you are interested in starting running Madge, you might like a look at
> this.
>
> http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=24

Interesting site, thanks.
Madge O'Reene - 28 Jul 2006 08:09 GMT
> 1st June: 130kg (287 lbs)
> 23rd June: 117kg (258 lbs)
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> each morning from the 1st August. The last time I tried, I couldn't
> manage more than 1 minute worth at a time :-s

Just had my second "You've lost weight!" comment, this time from a
colleague. In fact, it was more "You've lost weight... you've lost a
LOT of weight"

So I'm in a great mood this morning. Add to that, I managed 650 cals on
the exercise bike this morning and 1200 on it last night and I'm really
pleased with myself.
The Historian - 28 Jul 2006 10:22 GMT
> > 1st June: 130kg (287 lbs)
> > 23rd June: 117kg (258 lbs)
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> the exercise bike this morning and 1200 on it last night and I'm really
> pleased with myself.

You should be. Congratulations on your progress.

Neil
385/304/200
 
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.