OK, so I knew I was unfit. But by the time I go pick my car up, I will 
have travelled approximately 8 miles on foot today. Turns out I'm not 
unfit - I am a fat useless sack of **** who probably doesn't deserve to 
live. >_<

First I drove my car to the garage, and then I walked home. Apparently 
that's about 1.25 miles. (According to the wibbly wobbly line I drew in 
Google Earth anyway.) Then I wanted to go visit a friend, but she said 
she was going out shortly. I attempted to jog over there - yeah, that 
didn't happen. I /was/ fairly wet by the time I arrived though (bearing 
in mind that it's currently +3°C outside). And then I walked home again. 
Apparently the trip is about 2.75 miles each way.

My legs hurt now. To be fair, I think it was probably the jogging that 
did that. The impact of hitting the ground did feel fairly extreme. 
(Sure, I jump around all the time at dance class, but that's on a sprung 
dance floor, not a concrete footpath.) So yeah, I may have slightly 
strained the tendons. I'm sure it'll stop hurting in a while.

Of course, while I was actually walking, it was the front of my legs 
that hurt. That wore off after a few minutes of sitting down. Now only 
the backs of my legs hurt.

Post a reply to this message

Safety of your knees : no jogging once you are past 80 kg. No athletic
running either.

Reduce your weight first, then you could jump.

Dancing is ok, you do not hurt the knee so much with brutal impact: one
foot is usually kept on the floor all time when dancing.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/02/2012 03:48 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Safety of your knees : no jogging once you are past 80 kg. No athletic
> running either.

I used to be 80 Kg.

4 years ago. :'{

It's an amusing coincidence that my weight gain just happens to coincide 
with my starting dance classes...

Post a reply to this message

Le 15/02/2012 12:42, Invisible a écrit :

> It's an amusing coincidence that my weight gain just happens to coincide
> with my starting dance classes...
Nope, muscles are more dense than fat.
If you exercise, you gain weight.
Dance is a real physical exhaustion.
At best, you can expect a loss of circumference between torso and legs,
not a loss of weight. At least not in the first stage.

Once a part of fat has been replaced by muscle in your volume, you can
reduce your weight either:
 * stop the exercise : the muscles will disappear first and very easily
(and the skin will be flappy)
 * continue the exercise with a constant diet: if the diet is a bit
under the need, the fat will be consumed. If the diet is far under the
need, the body will "remember" and at all next occasion will store far
more fat (you loose).

Post a reply to this message

>> It's an amusing coincidence that my weight gain just happens to coincide
>> with my starting dance classes...

> Nope, muscles are more dense than fat.

Hah! As if there's any muscle on me...

More like, I started dancing just around the time I turned 30, when my 
waistline suddenly began massively enlarging.

> If you exercise, you gain weight.

I'm fairly sure dancing doesn't give you a huge gut.

> Dance is a real physical exhaustion.

Hell yes! >_< I literally do not have the stamina for this... :-(

Post a reply to this message

Le 15/02/2012 14:08, Invisible a écrit :
>> If you exercise, you gain weight.
> 
> I'm fairly sure dancing doesn't give you a huge gut.


Once again, confusion between weight & volume!

"Huge" apply to volume.

What is heavier: a litre of gold or ten litre of water ?
Which one take more place ?

Same happen for muscle / fat.

1. You can be heavy & big. (muscle+fat or just lot of fat)
2. You can be heavy & smaller. (muscle but no fat)
3. You can be light & big (fat but no muscle)
4. You can be light & smaller (less fat, still no muscle: only bones & skin)

Typical #4 is anorexic girl (an apple is 4 complete meals! May be I can
save the pips for some extra)
#3 is often sedentary people.
#2 is marathon runner and the like.
#1 is yo mama and Mick Tyson.
(no offence intended to either, I need my life)

You should measure your "health" with a ribbon meter, not a weighting
scale. It's the small/big part which influence most behaviour, not the
heavy/light.

Post a reply to this message

On 15/02/2012 01:38 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> You should measure your "health" with a ribbon meter, not a weighting
> scale. It's the small/big part which influence most behaviour, not the
> heavy/light.

Well, I don't know about a tape measure, but around the time I started 
dancing, all my trousers stopped fitting any more. :-(

Post a reply to this message

On 2012-02-15 05:42, Invisible wrote:
> I used to be 80 Kg.

...but then I took an arrow in my knee.

Post a reply to this message

On 15/02/2012 20:02, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2012-02-15 05:42, Invisible wrote:
>> I used to be 80 Kg.
>
> ...but then I took an arrow in my knee.

What the hell does that even *mean*?!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:09:27 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 15/02/2012 20:02, Tim Cook wrote:
>> On 2012-02-15 05:42, Invisible wrote:
>>> I used to be 80 Kg.
>>
>> ...but then I took an arrow in my knee.
> 
> What the hell does that even *mean*?!

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee

Post a reply to this message

>>> ...but then I took an arrow in my knee.
>>
>> What the hell does that even *mean*?!
>
> http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee

Suddenly it makes /so much/ more sense...

http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111209

Also: Due to a brain malfunction, every time I see "Skyrim" I read it as 
"scrim". (Similarly, normally => tourmaline.)

Post a reply to this message

On 2/14/2012 10:20 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> First I drove my car to the garage, and then I walked home. Apparently
> that's about 1.25 miles. (According to the wibbly wobbly line I drew in
> Google Earth anyway.) Then I wanted to go visit a friend, but she said
> she was going out shortly. I attempted to jog over there - yeah, that
> didn't happen. I /was/ fairly wet by the time I arrived though (bearing
> in mind that it's currently +3°C outside). And then I walked home again.
> Apparently the trip is about 2.75 miles each way.
>
> My legs hurt now. To be fair, I think it was probably the jogging that
> did that. The impact of hitting the ground did feel fairly extreme.
> (Sure, I jump around all the time at dance class, but that's on a sprung
> dance floor, not a concrete footpath.) So yeah, I may have slightly
> strained the tendons. I'm sure it'll stop hurting in a while.
>

That sounds reasonable from what you describe your normal activity to 
be.  You just used a lot of muscle groups in ways that you don't 
normally use them.

Expect to be sore and in some pain if you have not been jogging and then 
you try to do 5 miles.  Do pay attention to what may just be muscle 
soreness and what may be actual injury forming.

But the best part is that if you take a couple of days off from running 
and then do it again you will eventually feel better and not be in so 
much pain.

A good pair of running shoes can help lessen the impact and pain.  If 
you want to run regularly then you should reserve your running shoes for 
just that - running and not wear them for just going out.

Also, running on concrete can be pretty hard on the body - running on 
asphalt can make a big difference.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

Walking only burns a few hundred calories an hour. You need to burn (and not
replace) about 3500 calories (more than a days worth) to lose one pound of fat.
To make matters worse, you can't do any of this too quickly or your body will
rebel against you. Walking won't increase your bmr. Eat a piece of pie and all
of your suffering will have been for nothing.

Get in shape as I described in the fitness thread. Learn about tabata. Do
push-ups. Start counting calories.

ALSO:

Wow! Things are different over there. I weight over 90 kg, and I'm considered
trim in Texas.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Walking only burns a few hundred calories an hour. You need to burn (and not
> replace) about 3500 calories (more than a days worth) to lose one pound of fat.
> To make matters worse, you can't do any of this too quickly or your body will
> rebel against you. Walking won't increase your bmr. Eat a piece of pie and all
> of your suffering will have been for nothing.

  Leisure walking might not, but vigorous walking certainly will. It's
almost as efficient as jogging, but much more suitable for an unfit
person.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 25/02/2012 16:03, Shay wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>
> Walking only burns a few hundred calories an hour. You need to burn (and not
> replace) about 3500 calories (more than a days worth) to lose one pound of fat.
> To make matters worse, you can't do any of this too quickly or your body will
> rebel against you. Walking won't increase your bmr. Eat a piece of pie and all
> of your suffering will have been for nothing.
>
> Get in shape as I described in the fitness thread. Learn about tabata. Do
> push-ups. Start counting calories.

Yeah, I wasn't actually attempting to lose weight. I just didn't have a 
car and needed to go places. I'm actually surprised I managed it without 
dying, to be honest.

As I say, at school we went on a 5 mile walk, and it took about 8 hours. 
That gives an average walking speed of about just over 1 MPH. At that 
speed, walking 4 miles should have taken almost 4 hours...

> ALSO:
>
> Wow! Things are different over there. I weight over 90 kg, and I'm considered
> trim in Texas.

I used to be 80 Kg. Now I'm 90. :-{ Isn't that the best part about old 
age? Now all I have to look forward to in life is progressively getting 
worse...

Post a reply to this message

On 2/25/2012 9:03 AM, Shay wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>
> Walking only burns a few hundred calories an hour. You need to burn (and not
> replace) about 3500 calories (more than a days worth) to lose one pound of fat.
> To make matters worse, you can't do any of this too quickly or your body will
> rebel against you. Walking won't increase your bmr. Eat a piece of pie and all
> of your suffering will have been for nothing.
>
Uh, worse news. Turns out, when you do burn them, your body responds by 
converting you "speed" muscle to "strength" muscle, which is roughly 10% 
more efficient, so to "keep burning" those 3500 calories, you have to 
drastically increase how much time, and work, you apply to doing so, to 
keep off the original loss. In effect, once you have it, its harder to 
keep it off again, than if you never had it.

Also. A thing about BMI. The man that invented it stated, clearly, "This 
is not intended to be a metric of health." It became such via comity, 
not via science. In reality, it cannot tell you if you are healthy, your 
organs are functioning, or you will end up suffering diseases, as a 
result of your weight. Its nonsense, but it is nonsense that can be used 
to sell you expensive "fixes" for the same nonsense, like new diet pills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlXxoG98urc&list=UUJm5yR1KFcysl_0I3x-iReg&index=5&feature=plcp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:11:18 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Also. A thing about BMI. 

Absolutely! Andrew should forget about his BMI and worry about his BMR. 
Walking is good exercise. So are the bike riding, running, weight 
lifting, hammer swinging, ladder climbing, kettle bell work, and 
calisthenics that I do. But I wouldn't recommend any of these to Andrew 
because none are the shortest path to what he wants.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 2/27/2012 8:17 AM, Shay wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:11:18 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Also. A thing about BMI.
>
> Absolutely! Andrew should forget about his BMI and worry about his BMR.
> Walking is good exercise. So are the bike riding, running, weight
> lifting, hammer swinging, ladder climbing, kettle bell work, and
> calisthenics that I do. But I wouldn't recommend any of these to Andrew
> because none are the shortest path to what he wants.
>
>   -Shay
Interesting note. A study done a while back showed that merely knowing 
how much you burned, somehow, may result in increased loss. The study 
was conducted with two groups working basically identical jobs, under 
basically identical conditions, where the only apparent difference was 
that one group had a chart to consult, telling them how much they 
burned, for every single thing they did during the day, while the other 
didn't.

Still.. I seem to remember that they was someone looking into trying 
to.. retrain their body for "fast" action, like sprinting. One major 
improvement in BMR would literally be to trigger such a change, since if 
you could get your muscles to re-organize for speed, it would drop their 
efficiency 10%+, and thus burn that much more energy, during the same 
duration of exercise. Not sure if this is possible though. 
Unfortunately, pretty much *all* types of exercise used to drop weight 
does the exact opposite, triggering an "increase" in efficiency, and 
making it harder to lose/keep off the weight.

Post a reply to this message

On 28/02/2012 09:43 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Interesting note. A study done a while back showed that merely knowing
> how much you burned, somehow, may result in increased loss.

Sounds like something similar to the placebo effect. (Note: The placebo 
effect is /not/ imaginary. It is real. It can be measured.) It's no 
secret that both happiness and stress release a whole host of hormones 
which make various organs function differently - so it's hardly 
implausible that knowing how well your exercise is going could affect 
how well your exercise goes.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/28/2012 4:59, Invisible wrote:
> On 28/02/2012 09:43 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Interesting note. A study done a while back showed that merely knowing
>> how much you burned, somehow, may result in increased loss.
>
> Sounds like something similar to the placebo effect.

It's also the case that your metabolism is regulated based on how much food 
is available, how likely you are to be eaten by a tiger, etc. I've seen 
studies where people imagined being in danger and (over time) lost weight, 
and the doctors doing the study figured it was because your mind was 
preparing you to run away.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012/02/28 04:43, Patrick Elliott a écrit :

> Still.. I seem to remember that they was someone looking into trying
> to.. retrain their body for "fast" action, like sprinting. One major
> improvement in BMR would literally be to trigger such a change, since if
> you could get your muscles to re-organize for speed, it would drop their
> efficiency 10%+, and thus burn that much more energy, during the same
> duration of exercise. Not sure if this is possible though.
> Unfortunately, pretty much *all* types of exercise used to drop weight
> does the exact opposite, triggering an "increase" in efficiency, and
> making it harder to lose/keep off the weight.

To optimise your muscles for speed, you need low load, repetitive, 
sustained and fast exercises.

Doing the classic biscep building routine WITHOUT weight at about 50 to 
60 flexions/extentions per minutes would be a nice example.

Then, whatever you do that use your muscles, will initialy burn fat. 
Then, in the long term, you'll start to gain weight as you build up 
muscle mass faster that you burn fat. And remember: muscle dencity is 
larger than 1 (sink in water) while fat dencity is less than 1 (float in 
water). That's why I don't float, I don't have enough body fat and my 
muscles and bones have a somewhat above average dencity. It makes it 
prety hard to learn to swim...


Alain

Post a reply to this message

>>> Interesting note. A study done a while back showed that merely knowing
>>> how much you burned, somehow, may result in increased loss.
>>
>> Sounds like something similar to the placebo effect.
>
> It's also the case that your metabolism is regulated based on how much
> food is available, how likely you are to be eaten by a tiger, etc. I've
> seen studies where people imagined being in danger and (over time) lost
> weight, and the doctors doing the study figured it was because your mind
> was preparing you to run away.

Seems reasonable.

Note that stress makes you ill. (I'm not talking about having a naff day 
at work. I'm talking about being /really/ stressed out.) Thing is, when 
humans evolved, the only reason for being "stressed" was that you're 
about to be attacked by something, and you should either kill it or run 
away from it, really fast. So either the threat would be killed, or 
you'd escape, or you'd die. Either way, the situation would be resolved 
pretty quickly.

So the stress reaction is only supposed to be used for a short time. But 
today, a "threat" isn't necessarily something you can resolve in a few 
minutes. It can go on and on for months. Meanwhile, your body is 
prepared for imminent physical conflict 24/7. Gradually that screws 
everything up.

I'm wondering whether stressing yourself to try to provoke weight loss 
is actually a good idea. I suppose it depends on the degree. And hey, if 
you only need to do that until you reach your target weight, maybe 
that's not so bad...

Post a reply to this message

On 29/02/2012 02:52 AM, Alain wrote:

> And remember: muscle dencity is
> larger than 1 (sink in water) while fat dencity is less than 1 (float in
> water). That's why I don't float, I don't have enough body fat and my
> muscles and bones have a somewhat above average dencity. It makes it
> prety hard to learn to swim...

Ironically, I can't swim for the opposite reason: After about 2 meters 
or so, I'm too exhausted to continue.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/29/2012 1:14, Invisible wrote:
> Ironically, I can't swim for the opposite reason: After about 2 meters or
> so, I'm too exhausted to continue.

You're doing it wrong, is all. It's really, really easy to learn how to swim 
however far you want to go.

http://www.totalimmersion.net/

It's really super-super easy.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It's really super-super easy.

  How to learn to swim properly:

1) Buy swimming goggles. They are *essential*. Don't bother trying without
them. (When you buy them, it's extremely important that you check that they
are watertight and don't leak water when on. They should act like suction
cups.)

2) In the pool, before starting any swimming, learn to immerse yourself
under water and exhale air from your nose at a normal breathing rate
(ie. not too fast, not too slow, just the normal rate of breathing).
Do this repeatedly over and over (iow. when above water, inhale, then go
underwater, exhale air from your nose at a normal pace, come up, repeat).

3) Look up some pros swimming using breaststrokes. (There are some
animations in wikipedia as well.) This is by far the easiest form of
swimming. Swim like that. Pace your breathing with the swimming strokes,
just like in step 2: When your head is above water, inhale, when it's
underwater, exhale from your nose. Try to maximize the time your head
is underwater and minimize the time above (no need to exaggerate, of
course).

  Don't rush to other swimming styles. Breaststrokes are by far the
easiest and most economical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 02/03/2012 06:59 AM, Warp wrote:

>    How to learn to swim properly:
>
> 1) Buy swimming goggles. They are *essential*. Don't bother trying without
> them. (When you buy them, it's extremely important that you check that they
> are watertight and don't leak water when on. They should act like suction
> cups.)

In all the years that I've been alive on this Earth, I have never, ever, 
even once, found a pair of goggles that don't leak like a sieve. As far 
as I can tell, goggles just flat-out don't work. (Or maybe it's that 
only the incredibly expensive ones work, I don't know.) Every pair of 
goggles I've ever owned has been a total waste of money.

Also: People who open their eyes underwater. OUCH! >_<

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> In all the years that I've been alive on this Earth, I have never, ever, 
> even once, found a pair of goggles that don't leak like a sieve. As far 
> as I can tell, goggles just flat-out don't work.

  You just have to search. Go to the shop and try every one of them
(as said, try them on, and if they act like suction cups and don't fall
off even without the strap, they will probably work). If you can't find
good ones in one shop, try another.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:00:29 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> On 02/03/2012 06:59 AM, Warp wrote:
> 
>>    How to learn to swim properly:
>>
>> 1) Buy swimming goggles. They are *essential*. Don't bother trying
>> without them. (When you buy them, it's extremely important that you
>> check that they are watertight and don't leak water when on. They
>> should act like suction cups.)
> 
> In all the years that I've been alive on this Earth, I have never, ever,
> even once, found a pair of goggles that don't leak like a sieve. As far
> as I can tell, goggles just flat-out don't work. (Or maybe it's that
> only the incredibly expensive ones work, I don't know.) Every pair of
> goggles I've ever owned has been a total waste of money.

I used to speed swim - never had a problem with inexpensive goggles 
leaking - but the problem that I did tend to have was that they fogged 
up.  Even the anti-fogging ones would give me trouble.

> Also: People who open their eyes underwater. OUCH! >_<

I'm with you on that.  Especially chlorinated water.  That just stings, 
and I never could get used to it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I used to speed swim - never had a problem with inexpensive goggles 
> leaking - but the problem that I did tend to have was that they fogged 
> up.  Even the anti-fogging ones would give me trouble.

  There's a lesser-known trick to help that: Before starting to swim,
spit on the inside of the goggles (and rub the spit on the inner surface).
It's not as gross as it sounds, and it helps surprisingly well. In my
experience you might still get a slight amount of fogging, but considerably
less.

  (I'm assuming human spit creates a protective "layer" that stops
fogging.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:10:01 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I used to speed swim - never had a problem with inexpensive goggles
>> leaking - but the problem that I did tend to have was that they fogged
>> up.  Even the anti-fogging ones would give me trouble.
> 
>   There's a lesser-known trick to help that: Before starting to swim,
> spit on the inside of the goggles (and rub the spit on the inner
> surface). It's not as gross as it sounds, and it helps surprisingly
> well. In my experience you might still get a slight amount of fogging,
> but considerably less.
> 
>   (I'm assuming human spit creates a protective "layer" that stops
> fogging.)

ISTR having tried that with limited success - but  it does make sense.

Sadly, I've not been in shape to swim for some time - it's hard to pick 
up something you were once good at and have to start over from the 
beginning - ie, learning to breathe again with the water pressure on your 
chest - I have a very hard time doing that these days, and I know it just 
takes time to get acclimated to it.  I tried getting back into it about a 
year ago, but when you've done speed swimming, distance swimming, and 
springboard diving (never anything crazy there, and never diving off the 
higher boards), it's hard to just get in the water and bob up and down, 
even though it's absolutely necessary.

Just like (for me) playing the violin - I'd love to get back into it, but 
I have no callouses on my fingers, and I don't have the patience to build 
them up again.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 03/02/2012 02:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:10:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>> I used to speed swim - never had a problem with inexpensive goggles
>>> leaking - but the problem that I did tend to have was that they fogged
>>> up.  Even the anti-fogging ones would give me trouble.
>>
>>    There's a lesser-known trick to help that: Before starting to swim,
>> spit on the inside of the goggles (and rub the spit on the inner
>> surface). It's not as gross as it sounds, and it helps surprisingly
>> well. In my experience you might still get a slight amount of fogging,
>> but considerably less.
>>
>>    (I'm assuming human spit creates a protective "layer" that stops
>> fogging.)
>
> ISTR having tried that with limited success - but  it does make sense.

certified diver (navy days) and it worked just fine for me ... matter of 
fact that's what everyone else did as well

Post a reply to this message

Le 02/03/2012 21:56, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
>>>
>>>    (I'm assuming human spit creates a protective "layer" that stops
>>> fogging.)
>>
>> ISTR having tried that with limited success - but  it does make sense.
> 
> certified diver (navy days) and it worked just fine for me ... matter of
> fact that's what everyone else did as well

Not a protective layer, just a wet liquid layer. Fog in goggle is opaque
because it's a distributed noise of liquid points over a dry surface.
Spitting will create a thick film that "glue" to the glass (work better
on glass than on plastic) and that film collects the points of fog.
Being dissolved in the thicker film, humidity does not become
diffracting/white.

Issue of spitting: goggle accumulate a lot of proteins which make the
goggle more opaque. You need to use a bit of dish-washing product with
clear water after usage to get ride of the proteins. (So, it's "spit
before, wash with tension-active after"; Washing with only clear water
is a failure)

Post a reply to this message

On 03/02/2012 04:36 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 02/03/2012 21:56, James Holsenback nous fit lire :
>>>>
>>>>     (I'm assuming human spit creates a protective "layer" that stops
>>>> fogging.)
>>>
>>> ISTR having tried that with limited success - but  it does make sense.
>>
>> certified diver (navy days) and it worked just fine for me ... matter of
>> fact that's what everyone else did as well
>
> Not a protective layer, just a wet liquid layer. Fog in goggle is opaque
> because it's a distributed noise of liquid points over a dry surface.
> Spitting will create a thick film that "glue" to the glass (work better
> on glass than on plastic) and that film collects the points of fog.
> Being dissolved in the thicker film, humidity does not become
> diffracting/white.
>
> Issue of spitting: goggle accumulate a lot of proteins which make the
> goggle more opaque. You need to use a bit of dish-washing product with
> clear water after usage to get ride of the proteins. (So, it's "spit
> before, wash with tension-active after"; Washing with only clear water
> is a failure)

well, salt water diving will rot your equipment, so yes washing with 
something like dish-washing soap is a definite must ... on "The Hawk" we 
used to just throw everything in this big tub and someone else did the 
"dirty work"

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:56:11 -0500, James Holsenback wrote:

> On 03/02/2012 02:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:10:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>>> I used to speed swim - never had a problem with inexpensive goggles
>>>> leaking - but the problem that I did tend to have was that they
>>>> fogged up.  Even the anti-fogging ones would give me trouble.
>>>
>>>    There's a lesser-known trick to help that: Before starting to swim,
>>> spit on the inside of the goggles (and rub the spit on the inner
>>> surface). It's not as gross as it sounds, and it helps surprisingly
>>> well. In my experience you might still get a slight amount of fogging,
>>> but considerably less.
>>>
>>>    (I'm assuming human spit creates a protective "layer" that stops
>>> fogging.)
>>
>> ISTR having tried that with limited success - but  it does make sense.
> 
> certified diver (navy days) and it worked just fine for me ... matter of
> fact that's what everyone else did as well

Cool, good to know. :)

SCUBA is something I'd always wanted to try, but unfortunately I 
perforated my eardrum when I was 14 (diving accident - off the board and 
slapped the side of my head on the water - I was able to whistle through 
my ear afterwards, but then the pain it...Oh, the pain was *awful*), and 
never went any further with it.  I'd done snorkeling a few times and 
enjoyed that quite a lot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012/03/02 04:00, Invisible a écrit :
> On 02/03/2012 06:59 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>> How to learn to swim properly:
>>
>> 1) Buy swimming goggles. They are *essential*. Don't bother trying
>> without
>> them. (When you buy them, it's extremely important that you check that
>> they
>> are watertight and don't leak water when on. They should act like suction
>> cups.)
>
> In all the years that I've been alive on this Earth, I have never, ever,
> even once, found a pair of goggles that don't leak like a sieve. As far
> as I can tell, goggles just flat-out don't work. (Or maybe it's that
> only the incredibly expensive ones work, I don't know.) Every pair of
> goggles I've ever owned has been a total waste of money.
>
> Also: People who open their eyes underwater. OUCH! >_<

Opening your eyes underwater... I've never put my head under water with 
my eyes closed. In a swiming pool, in a lake, at sea... all the same and 
no problem and no pain at all.
Leting air out underwater, also a natural thing for me.

My only problem with swiming is that I float like a brick!


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012/03/02 05:27, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:00:29 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2012 06:59 AM, Warp wrote:
>>
>>>     How to learn to swim properly:
>>>
>>> 1) Buy swimming goggles. They are *essential*. Don't bother trying
>>> without them. (When you buy them, it's extremely important that you
>>> check that they are watertight and don't leak water when on. They
>>> should act like suction cups.)
>>
>> In all the years that I've been alive on this Earth, I have never, ever,
>> even once, found a pair of goggles that don't leak like a sieve. As far
>> as I can tell, goggles just flat-out don't work. (Or maybe it's that
>> only the incredibly expensive ones work, I don't know.) Every pair of
>> goggles I've ever owned has been a total waste of money.
>
> I used to speed swim - never had a problem with inexpensive goggles
> leaking - but the problem that I did tend to have was that they fogged
> up.  Even the anti-fogging ones would give me trouble.
>
>> Also: People who open their eyes underwater. OUCH!>_<
>
> I'm with you on that.  Especially chlorinated water.  That just stings,
> and I never could get used to it.
>
> Jim

A very simple anti fogging tip:
Rub some saliva on the inside and do a quick rinse, put on and no fogging.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 3/1/2012 22:59, Warp wrote:
>    Don't rush to other swimming styles. Breaststrokes are by far the
> easiest and most economical.

I disagree. Freestyle I find is much easier, because you can pause at any 
stroke and just coast and breathe and float. With breaststroke, if you want 
to stop, you have to actually stop swimming. I.e., you have to swim hard 
enough to lift your face from the water with breaststroke.

For the "total immersion", you basically just have to get into a position in 
the water where you're floating properly. You turn your head, and your face 
is out of the water, and you can just glide like that until you stop. You 
roll to the other side while drawing your arm back, and you go forward, and 
coast to a stop with your face out of the water. Very relaxing if that's how 
you want to swim.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/2/2012 2:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm with you on that.  Especially chlorinated water.  That just stings,
> and I never could get used to it.

Much worse is when your mask fills while you're doing SCUBA. It's not like 
you can stop and rub the salt-water out of your eyes.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/2/2012 11:10, Warp wrote:
>    (I'm assuming human spit creates a protective "layer" that stops
> fogging.)

It's a chemical in your saliva. It doesn't work with other fluids.

Baby oil works too, btw.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/2/2012 13:54, James Holsenback wrote:
> used to just throw everything in this big tub and someone else did the
> "dirty work"

I suspect that they didn't necessarily consider that part the "dirty work." :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 22:59, Warp wrote:
> >    Don't rush to other swimming styles. Breaststrokes are by far the
> > easiest and most economical.

> I disagree. Freestyle I find is much easier

  Maybe if you are fit. In my experience it's more demanding, while
breaststroke is way more leisurely.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Also: People who open their eyes underwater. OUCH! >_<
>
> Opening your eyes underwater... I've never put my head under water with
> my eyes closed. In a swiming pool, in a lake, at sea... all the same and
> no problem and no pain at all.
> Leting air out underwater, also a natural thing for me.

Might be related to the fact that I'm allergic to chlorine...

> My only problem with swiming is that I float like a brick!

LOL!

Post a reply to this message

On 3/2/2012 23:49, Warp wrote:
>    Maybe if you are fit. In my experience it's more demanding, while
> breaststroke is way more leisurely.

I'm far from fit. I find freestyle is more relaxing because basically you 
can go as slowly as you like.  I think in breaststroke your face is 
basically underwater if you stop, right? Or am I confused about which strokes?

In any case, once you know how to float, the actual swimming part becomes 
pretty easy.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:40:44 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> I'm far from fit. I find freestyle is more relaxing because basically
> you can go as slowly as you like.  I think in breaststroke your face is
> basically underwater if you stop, right? Or am I confused about which
> strokes?

It's fairly easy when doing breaststroke to just coast and kick and keep 
your head above the water.  Indeed, when I used to swim laps, I'd see a 
fair number of retirees swimming and they'd do this and never actually 
put their faces in the water.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:42:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> On 3/2/2012 2:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm with you on that.  Especially chlorinated water.  That just stings,
>> and I never could get used to it.
> 
> Much worse is when your mask fills while you're doing SCUBA. It's not
> like you can stop and rub the salt-water out of your eyes.

I'd believe that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/3/2012 13:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's fairly easy when doing breaststroke to just coast and kick and keep
> your head above the water.

I take it back, then. I never got good enough at breast-stroke to do that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's fairly easy when doing breaststroke to just coast and kick and keep 
> your head above the water.  Indeed, when I used to swim laps, I'd see a 
> fair number of retirees swimming and they'd do this and never actually 
> put their faces in the water.

  That's not the most efficient way of swimming, though. (Else it would
make sense to swim breastsroke "properly", ie. going underwater.) Your
head is heavy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:16:37 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It's fairly easy when doing breaststroke to just coast and kick and
>> keep your head above the water.  Indeed, when I used to swim laps, I'd
>> see a fair number of retirees swimming and they'd do this and never
>> actually put their faces in the water.
> 
>   That's not the most efficient way of swimming, though. (Else it would
> make sense to swim breastsroke "properly", ie. going underwater.) Your
> head is heavy.

Nobody really said it was the most efficient way to swim, just that this 
is a way to handle it when you need a break.

You're not going to be Michael Phelps doing it this way - but nobody 
claimed you would be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You're not going to be Michael Phelps doing it this way - but nobody 
> claimed you would be.

  It's not about speed, but about efficiency. "Taking a break" by swimming
in a less efficient (and hence more tiring) way sounds counterproductive.
If you need to take a break, then just stop at the end of the pool.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.03.2012 08:41, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>> You're not going to be Michael Phelps doing it this way - but nobody
>> claimed you would be.
>
>    It's not about speed, but about efficiency. "Taking a break" by swimming
> in a less efficient (and hence more tiring) way sounds counterproductive.
> If you need to take a break, then just stop at the end of the pool.

I personally prefer swimming on my back to take a break. Not recommended 
in rough sea of course.

Post a reply to this message