Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / July 2006
Second weigh-in
|
|
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
|
|
|