 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 04:27 PM, scott wrote:
>> Right now I have a cold. But for the last few days, I've been running 1
>> mile every night. That's 10 minutes of running at 6 MPH. Sounds easy,
>> right? Well let me tell you, by the end of those 10 minutes - no, wait,
>> *before* the end of those 10 minutes, I am absurdly exhausted.
>
> Go slower and further - once you have built up to 3 or 4 miles at a
> slower pace you'll find if you go back to 1 mile you can do it a lot
> faster without much effort. Get a heart rate monitor watch that beeps
> above a certain limit, it helps to control your speed and stop you
> getting worn out too quickly.
Actually, I already have a heart rate monitor. And the weird thing is,
if I wear it while standing next to the exercise machines, they pick up
the signal and display my heart rate. It's almost as if somebody devised
a *standard* for heart rate transmissions...
You would think that running at a constant 6 MPH would use a constant
amount of energy, leading to a constant heart rate. You would be wrong.
When I start running, my heart rate just keeps on climbing. By the end
of my run, it's usually parked at around 188 BPM or so. (According to
the graph on the front of the machine, my "maximum heart rate" is 178
BPM. But what does a machine know?)
Another interesting thing is that when lifting weights, I often become
aware of my heart thumbing more forcefully. And yet, according to the
monitor my heart *rate* hasn't actually increased at all. Strange, but
true...
>> According to this machine, my flabby 180 lbs pounding the treadmill at 6
>> MPH burns about 15 kcal per minute. So a 1 mile run burns off a 150 kcal.
>
> But when compared to what your body burns off anyway during the day
> without any exercise (around 2500 kcal) running 1 mile doesn't really
> allow you to eat significantly more than if you didn't run.
That's kind of my point. I used to think that no matter what you eat,
you can just burn it off with enough exercise. Now I plainly see that
there isn't enough time in the universe for that to be even vaguely
possible. A single meal can /easily/ contain far more calories than you
could possibly hope to work off if you exercised for 24 hours straight.
No, clearly the /only/ way to lose weight is to drastically reduce
calorie intake. (What did I say about cheese? 410 kcal/100g? OK, so
there's not much chance of reducing that then...)
> That's why there's a million diet options available - the 600 ml bottle
> of pepsi max here on my desk has 100x less calories :-)
It weirds me out that pepsi max tastes drastically sweeter than normal
pepsi, despite NOT CONTAINING ANY SUGAR. O_O That's just creepy...
>> It seems crystal clear to be that the /only/ reason the manufacturers
>> would possibly do this is so that they can print smaller, less
>> frightening numbers on the packet.
>
> That reasoning doesn't explain then why they put the values per 250 ml
> serving on the front of drinks, when they could put the values per 100
> ml instead. I wonder if there is a set of "standard" serving sizes?
Yeah, maybe it's some government-mandated serving size thing?
It's a bit like how all products have a picture of the product on the
box with the magical incantation "serving suggestion" written text to
it. It's not that they're suggesting you should actually serve it like
this; it's that this incantation has magical legal properties which
roughly equate to "the product actually looks nothing like this, and you
cannot sue us for this fact".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 05:11 PM, scott wrote:
> I have a crazy guy who sits next to me in our office (so again training
> is not his full time job). He's going to run the London marathon this
> year, but for him that is just a warm up for the iron man triathlon he's
> doing later in the year. In case you don't know (I didn't until I looked
> it up) it's 2.4 miles swimming, 112 miles cycling and then a full
> marathon running. That probably will burn a few days worth of calories :-)
Yeah, I'm not saying that nobody can run a marathon. (Clearly quite a
lot of people can.) I'm saying that normal people don't end up looking
like Arnold Schwarzenegger - you know, the whole "arms thicker than tree
trunks" kind of thing. Heck, I'm walking around a public *gym* and
nobody looks like that!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 07:15 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> I also managed to find out that the milk we buy is 207 kcal / 100ml.
>> Now, if I know how many ml there is in 100g...
>
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AliciaNoelleJones.shtml
Your data indicates that milk weighs approximately 1.03 kg/L. In other
words, 1 ml weighs very slightly more than 1g. So the value per 100g is
very close to the value per 100ml. (Wolfram Alpha stubbornly *refuses*
to do the exact conversion...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 8:09 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> but that doesn't make it
> actually /do/ anything different to what a normal block of lard does...
Au contraire.
If you believe it does you good then sometimes it can. The mind is a
very strange thing. You have heard of the placebo effect, I presume.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 09:01 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 8:09 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> but that doesn't make it
>> actually /do/ anything different to what a normal block of lard does...
>
> Au contraire.
> If you believe it does you good then sometimes it can. The mind is a
> very strange thing. You have heard of the placebo effect, I presume.
The placebo effect is strongest on things which are not objectively
measurable. So I guess it depends what you're expecting this stuff to do.
But mostly I just hate the cynical use of psuedo-scientific phrases in
an attempt to make the same old product sound like something
revolutionary and new. It cheapens real science.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 05/02/2013 04:09 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Rule #1 - Never say anything that isn't true, but.. never actually say
>> what **IS** true either.
>
> Ah yes, the lies without lying. Gotta love that!
>
> Although I have to say, the beauty products with the string of
> sciency-sounding "technology" names are the ones that really annoy me.
> You can take a block of lard and call it "Novo(tm) triglyceride
> formulation with sodium ion technology(r)", but that doesn't make it
> actually /do/ anything different to what a normal block of lard does...
My all-time favorite is the beauty cream made with extracts (which
extracts?) from plants that grow under high voltage lines, therefore the
cream will help (how much?) protect you against EMI.
The runner-up:
A spokesperson for one of the beauty companies who was asked about the
cancer-causing products (mainly formaldehyde) used in beauty salons who
replied that "since skin was impermeable, it was impossible for those
chemicals to get in your body. To which the reporter retorted: "So
you're saying all those skin creams that your company makes that are
supposed to be "deep-penetrating" actually don't work?"
Oops!
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually, I already have a heart rate monitor. And the weird thing is,
> if I wear it while standing next to the exercise machines, they pick up
> the signal and display my heart rate. It's almost as if somebody devised
> a *standard* for heart rate transmissions...
Or rather there is no standard and they just transmit a "white noise"
pulse. Mine used to stop working for a 10 seconds or so when I ran under
power lines or over an electrified train line. I don't think they are
that sophisticated to run on different channels or frequency hop :-)
> You would think that running at a constant 6 MPH would use a constant
> amount of energy, leading to a constant heart rate.
Once you have reached steady state, yes pretty much...
> You would be wrong.
> When I start running, my heart rate just keeps on climbing. By the end
> of my run, it's usually parked at around 188 BPM or so. (According to
> the graph on the front of the machine, my "maximum heart rate" is 178
> BPM. But what does a machine know?)
..but it sounds like your body is not capable to continuously deliver
the amount of energy needed for 6 mph. IIRC you want to be aiming for
about 70% of your maximum heart rate (I set up my watch years ago for
the heart rate ranges) - so go whatever speed is needed to maintain that
rate. If your heart rate keeps rising above that then slow down - as
Warp said if you are really unfit to start with then that may mean you
have to walk and not even run at all.
> Another interesting thing is that when lifting weights, I often become
> aware of my heart thumbing more forcefully. And yet, according to the
> monitor my heart *rate* hasn't actually increased at all. Strange, but
> true...
What are you doing on weights - get back on that running machine! :-)
> That's kind of my point. I used to think that no matter what you eat,
> you can just burn it off with enough exercise. Now I plainly see that
> there isn't enough time in the universe for that to be even vaguely
> possible. A single meal can /easily/ contain far more calories than you
> could possibly hope to work off if you exercised for 24 hours straight.
You said you burnt 15 cal/min, that's 900 an hour. Do an hour run after
work and you've pretty much earned yourself an additional meal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But mostly I just hate the cynical use of psuedo-scientific phrases in
> an attempt to make the same old product sound like something
> revolutionary and new. It cheapens real science.
Especially for cosmetics though there is a huge amount of real science
that goes on in the background, the marketing department then needs to
dumb it down for the target audience. That's probably why it doesn't
seem like any real science is happening.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/02/2013 08:36 AM, scott wrote:
>> Actually, I already have a heart rate monitor. And the weird thing is,
>> if I wear it while standing next to the exercise machines, they pick up
>> the signal and display my heart rate. It's almost as if somebody devised
>> a *standard* for heart rate transmissions...
>
> Or rather there is no standard and they just transmit a "white noise"
> pulse. Mine used to stop working for a 10 seconds or so when I ran under
> power lines or over an electrified train line. I don't think they are
> that sophisticated to run on different channels or frequency hop :-)
There's a certain piece of road. Every time I drive along it, the
monitor tells me my heart rate has hit 700 BPM. I'm fairly sure that's
physiologically impossible. ;-)
>> When I start running, my heart rate just keeps on climbing. By the end
>> of my run, it's usually parked at around 188 BPM or so. (According to
>> the graph on the front of the machine, my "maximum heart rate" is 178
>> BPM. But what does a machine know?)
>
> ..but it sounds like your body is not capable to continuously deliver
> the amount of energy needed for 6 mph. IIRC you want to be aiming for
> about 70% of your maximum heart rate (I set up my watch years ago for
> the heart rate ranges) - so go whatever speed is needed to maintain that
> rate. If your heart rate keeps rising above that then slow down - as
> Warp said if you are really unfit to start with then that may mean you
> have to walk and not even run at all.
Walking just feels like I'm not achieving anything. I mean, my legs feel
crippled after half an hour or so, but my heart rate has barely moved
from when I'm sitting down, and I don't feel particularly tired. It's
just that my calves hurt.
> What are you doing on weights - get back on that running machine! :-)
Gotta mix it up to stave off the boredom. ;-) Besides, now I can delude
myself that my arms look more muscular. (Even though that's obviously
impossible after a mere 20 days...)
>> That's kind of my point. I used to think that no matter what you eat,
>> you can just burn it off with enough exercise. Now I plainly see that
>> there isn't enough time in the universe for that to be even vaguely
>> possible. A single meal can /easily/ contain far more calories than you
>> could possibly hope to work off if you exercised for 24 hours straight.
>
> You said you burnt 15 cal/min, that's 900 an hour. Do an hour run after
> work and you've pretty much earned yourself an additional meal.
If I could actually run for an hour straight and not *die*, that would
be quite impressive...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 10:14 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> he placebo effect is strongest on things which are not objectively
> measurable.
Is it?
I've seen results from drug tests where the placebo group has better
results than the control group but not as good as the group that takes
the actual drug.
(Andrel's opinion would be of interest.)
> So I guess it depends what you're expecting this stuff to do.
>
Exactly, that is the point.
> But mostly I just hate the cynical use of psuedo-scientific phrases in
> an attempt to make the same old product sound like something
> revolutionary and new.
Does it make it any better if it is said by a white haired man (or a
pretty woman), wearing a lab coat? ;-)
> It cheapens real science.
Science is a whore when it comes to funding, IMO, as are lots of things.
But basically I agree with you.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
