 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fun thing #1: When people say "only fifty calories", apparently they
/actually/ mean 50 kcal - i.e., 50,000 calories. This weirds me out
slightly.
Anyway, at the end of last year, I joined a gym. I didn't actually visit
very much, to be honest. But now I've signed my dad up too, and for the
last two weeks we've been going to the gym together almost every night.
Because, let's face it, we both need the calorie burn!
It would be nice to walk around with an impressive set of bulging
muscles. But obviously that's impossible. (I mean, unless you quit your
job and become a full-time body-builder - and how has the money to do that?)
More importantly, I love to dance, and it frustrates the living hell out
of me that I can only dance for about 45 seconds before I'm so utterly
dead that I can barely stand up any more. That being the case, stamina
is something I want to work on.
The gym has all manner of machines you can play with. I did try using
the cross-trainer. But it forces you to take unnaturally large steps,
which make my legs really hurt. More recently I've been hitting the
treadmill.
Dancing is complicated. It takes a lot of mental focus to do it right.
You can't dance when you're too tired to think straight. But running is
simple. You just need to keep putting one foot in front of the other.
And there are no peaks and troughs to it. You just switch the machine on
and start running.
There's a lot of psychology to exercise. If you get on the treadmill and
start running, it's all too easy to just /stop/ when you start getting
tired. So what I do is program the machine for a specific duration at a
particular speed. That way I can watch the timer ticking down, I have a
goal to aim for, and I can't move the goalposts if I get bored or tired.
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. One night
I made the mistake of running a mile, and then an hour later trying to
do a second one. That nearly killed me.
Fun thing #2: I used to think you could eat whatever you like and then
go down the gym and just burn it all off. But that, apparently, is quite
impossible.
The treadmill (and several other machines) attempts to estimate the
number of calories you've expended. It seems to do this based solely on
the selected speed and whatever you lied to it about your weight. (I
would expect the /real/ energy usage to vary wildly based on a huge
range of other parameters...)
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.
So far so good.
Now look at that bottle of coke in my hand. "47 kcal", it says. So just
by having a drink when I'm done, I've completely negated 30% of that
mile. No, wait a sec - that's 47 kcal per 100 ml! But this isn't a 100
ml bottle - it's 550 ml. So that's... uh... 258 kcal! o_O Yes, this
small bottle of sugar-water contains /drastically/ more calories than
what I just half-killed myself burning off. (And trust me, after that I
*need* a drink!)
150 kcal sounds like a lot - 150 is a big number. But when you realise
the calorific value of some common everyday foods, you discover that
this is peanuts. (Incidentally, peanuts have a lot of calories.)
For example, if I eat a 500g bar of chocolate, that's 1,000 kcal. Then
again, that's a pretty big bar, so maybe it's not so surprising.
Sucrose is apparently 400 kcal per 100g. Butter (depending on which
brand) is something like 600 kcal per 100g. Of course, nobody sits down
and eats 100g of either of those things. But how about the bag of rice I
had with my supper? Apparently that's 300 kcal - and that's just *rice*!
People tell you that stuff is healthy.
Fun thing #3: For reasons beyond my comprehension, the rice gives me a
figure per 100g, and also per "serving". Apparently the idea is that
you're supposed to microwave this individually-packed rice and then eat
only half of it. WTF?
Similarly, I pick up a 36g packet of crisps and it tells me the
nutritional values "per 12g serving". Serously? Who THE HELL buys an
entire bag of crisps, opens it, and then eats only one third of it? I
mean, if we were talking about one of those big over-sized packets then
sure. But the little hand-sized ones? I've seen plenty of people buy two
and eat them both. There's hardly anything in them, after all.
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. Nobody eats a third of a packet of
crisps; that's, like, 4 individual flakes!
Perhaps my next project should be to sit down and compute the calorific
value of those lemon cakes I keep making. (I doubt the value changes
significantly due to cooking...)
Fun thing #4: Apparently I can lift 100kg with my legs. Notice that *I*
weigh less than 100kg. Weird, eh?
I can also left 45kg with my arms. It's taken me a while to work up to
that. I doubt I can lift any more than that, not because my arms won't
do it, but because my wrists can't take the load...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 02:53 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Perhaps my next project should be to sit down and compute the calorific
> value of those lemon cakes I keep making. (I doubt the value changes
> significantly due to cooking...)
Some randomly-selected food items, sorted by calorific value per 100g:
126 kcal White rice.
147 kcal Eggs. (~70 kcal per egg.)
256 kcal Blackcurrant jam.
263 kcal Minced beef.
302 kcal Lemon curd.
313 kcal Brown self-raising flour.
335 kcal White self-raising flour.
400 kcal Sugar (doesn't appear to matter which kind).
410 kcal Cheddar cheese.
410 kcal Flora margarine.
680 kcal Stork solid butter.
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...
Anyway, based on the above data, we can compute the total calorific
value of one of my lemon cakes:
250g flour = 837.5 kcal
250g sugar = 1,000.0 kcal
250g butter = 1,700.0 kcal
3 eggs = 210.0 kcal
3,747.5 kcal for the cake mix
1 jar of lemon curd is 400g, so half a jar is 200g.
200g lemon curd = 604.0 kcal
400g icing sugar = 1,600.0 kcal
5,951.5 kcal final total
If each person eats a 1/12th slice, that's 496 kcal per slice.
Now compute how many months you would have to run non-stop to burn that
many calories. Yeah, exactly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 03:30 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> 3,747.5 kcal for the cake mix
>
> 1 jar of lemon curd is 400g, so half a jar is 200g.
> 200g lemon curd = 604.0 kcal
> 400g icing sugar = 1,600.0 kcal
> 5,951.5 kcal final total
I believe I may have miscomputed here.
The layer of buttercream in the middle is 100g butter and 200g icing
sugar. It probably takes another 200g icing sugar to do the top. So that
gives us
200g lemon curd = 604.0 kcal
400g icing sugar = 1,600.0 kcal
100g butter = 680.0 kcal
6,641.5 kcal for the whole cake
553.5 kcal per slice
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/5/2013 7:53 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Fun thing #1: When people say "only fifty calories", apparently they
> /actually/ mean 50 kcal - i.e., 50,000 calories. This weirds me out
> slightly.
>
In a similar vein of questionable advertising/labeling:
http://skepchick.org/2013/02/centrum-silver-has-been-studied/
Rule #1 - Never say anything that isn't true, but.. never actually say
what **IS** true either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> More importantly, I love to dance, and it frustrates the living hell out
> of me that I can only dance for about 45 seconds before I'm so utterly
> dead that I can barely stand up any more. That being the case, stamina
> is something I want to work on.
I think we have had this conversation before, and back then you didn't
seem to believe me (or want to believe me, or whatever.)
If you want to get in good shape and gain stamina, so that you can dance
for more than 45 seconds, what you need is about 1 hour of aerobic exercise
5 or 6 times a week.
If you are in horrible shape, you achieve this by walking every day about
7 to 10 km at a good pace in one go (you have to end up sweating). You need
good shoes for this.
After 3 to 6 months you might be able to start jogging, and that's the
perfect continuation to this regime.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
> 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.
> Now look at that bottle of coke in my hand. "47 kcal", it says. So just
> by having a drink when I'm done, I've completely negated 30% of that
> mile. No, wait a sec - that's 47 kcal per 100 ml! But this isn't a 100
> ml bottle - it's 550 ml. So that's... uh... 258 kcal!
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 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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:53:12 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> It would be nice to walk around with an impressive set of bulging
> muscles.
> But obviously that's impossible. (I mean, unless you quit your job and
> become a full-time body-builder - and how has the money to do that?)
Yes, nobody in the world ever built muscles without being a full-time
bodybuilder. m-/
(I have a former boss who was a distance runner - he had something like
5% body fat, ran marathons, but it wasn't his full time job.)
What have we said before about these absolutist declarations that
something must *obviously* be impossible except/unless one makes the goal
the only thing in their life?
Oh, yeah - that that's usually entirely false.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes, nobody in the world ever built muscles without being a full-time
> bodybuilder. m-/
>
> (I have a former boss who was a distance runner - he had something like
> 5% body fat, ran marathons, but it wasn't his full time job.)
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 :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-02-05 10:30, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 05/02/2013 02:53 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> Perhaps my next project should be to sit down and compute the calorific
>> value of those lemon cakes I keep making. (I doubt the value changes
>> significantly due to cooking...)
>
> Some randomly-selected food items, sorted by calorific value per 100g:
>
> 126 kcal White rice.
> 147 kcal Eggs. (~70 kcal per egg.)
> 256 kcal Blackcurrant jam.
> 263 kcal Minced beef.
> 302 kcal Lemon curd.
> 313 kcal Brown self-raising flour.
> 335 kcal White self-raising flour.
> 400 kcal Sugar (doesn't appear to matter which kind).
> 410 kcal Cheddar cheese.
> 410 kcal Flora margarine.
> 680 kcal Stork solid butter.
>
> 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
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-02-05 12:11, scott a écrit :
> 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.
My spinning coach is going to try to run 30 ironmans (ironmen?) in 30
days, next fall. In 2008 he completed 10 ironmen in 11days 6 hrs and
last oct, he did 5 in 73 hours 40mins. He's currently the 2nd
utlratriathlete in the world.
http://www.iutasport.com/?page=worldcup
And that's on top of his full time job in a hospital and his part time
job as a spinning and running coach.
But of course, that's impossible.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-02-05 15:09, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/5/2013 2:01 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.
>
There was a suggestion made a while back to deal with this BS in the
medical community. Define medicines as:
1. Medicine - The stuff that actually works, we know works, and we
bloody know why.
2. Unproven - Some percentage of people think it does, may be, some sort
of mechanism involved, but we really don't know what the F is going on,
or even if anything at all is going on, in many cases, save where the
effects are purely category #3
3. Comfort measures - Everything from fluffing their pillow, to
acupuncture. We know how, and why it works. Its purely a mental process,
but it bloody well doesn't involved unknown mechanisms, untested
theories, etc., nor does it actually 'treat' a condition, save via the
mental state of the individual.
I would add, just to be an ass:
4. Semi-medical. This would be everything from energy drinks to
multivitamins, such as the one I linked to. It has a benefit, to people
that need it, as in real, known effects. Those effects may **not be**
beneficial to everyone, and, more to the point can actually be hazardous
for some people. Yet some people are making #2 type claims for them, or
even #3 types.
Energy drinks are a good example of this mixed nonsense. Yes, the main
ingredient in Red Bull does have some "small" effect of muscle
efficiency, so.. it might be helpful, for some people, though.. in the
doses allowed in the drink... maybe not. Yes, the niacin in most of
these gives a bit of an energy boost, by forcing the body to divorce
itself of some amount of its cholesterol, but the effect is no where
near the same as "medical" doses of niacin, such as you might take if
you couldn't take normal medication for high cholesterol. You probably
get the same from those not actually very useful multivitamins. Yeah,
some of them have some of those very same vitamins in them. If you don't
need more, taking more won't help, and might hurt, if you get too much,
except that there is not likely enough in there to take too much, unless
its all you drink all day, in gallons. And then there is the long list
of, "unproven" stuff, with everything from plausible, to implausible,
mechanisms, like guarana (however it its spelled), or what ever the heck
all the other gibberish random fruits and things are in there.
The only reason its a 4th category is that it basically the equivalent
of putting up a chart on the wall, of every ingredient you can find from
categories 1 and 2, and maybe some of 3, then firing a shot gun at it,
to decide which "miracle" substances to put into the resulting drink. lol
The only ones "known" to have a significant effect are the caffeine and
sugar, and, laughably, many of them now have "sugar free" versions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/6/2013 2:22 PM, Stephen wrote:
> 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.)
>
That is precisely why it has to be measured for. It **does** have an
objective measurable effect, so has to be factored out, as much as
possible, to prevent skewing the results. The worst possible failure of
any test system is accidentally creating conditions where one of the
test groups actually "know" they are taking the actual medication. Its
the whole reason why they use double blind. So the patient doesn't know
that the nurse doesn't know which pill they have, based on the doctor
not telling either one of them. If somehow the researcher, or the person
handing out the pills, figures out which group actually is receiving
either one, it fowls the results, and its all over.
This is in contrast to pseudo-science studies, which either use pure
self reporting, where the people are self medicating, or fail to prevent
people knowing which one they are taking, etc. And, if you compare
medication A to medication B, you still need to use placebo C, to be
sure, so as to remove biases that may arise out of other factors, which
might be distorting the results of one, or both, groups taking A and B,
if you want to really sure. If you don't care, you don't do that, you
use stupid small study sizes, people (or animals) prone to the problem
you are studying, ignore vastly contradictory data, and cherry pick what
fits.
There is a big gripe in the whole anti-GMO bunch over one of those
studies. The study itself isn't "bad" per-say. Its being treated as
definitive, despite being preliminary. The data showed relatively
insignificant results, within margin of error, and certain decisions
about how it was conducted, how the data was analyzed, etc., was..
questionable. At best, it suggest further study, at worst.. it makes
implausible claims, doesn't provide a mechanism, shows anomolies in both
the test and control group data, which suggests its not reliable, and
worse, didn't use enough subjects, or over a long enough period, to rule
out other possibilities.
The anti-GMO people call these conclusions a witch hunt. The rest of the
scientific community are calling it sloppy, premature, unlikely to be
correct, since there is literally no known way that the food in question
might differ chemically from the normal crops, other than the addition
of a protein that "exists" in other foods, albeit not necessarily in the
same amounts. Or, in other words - further study needs to be done, and
an explanation for how/why its causing a problem, if it is, needs to be
come up with.
Anti-GMO's "mechanism" is, of course, that somehow adding a gene to
produce vitamin A in a plant that didn't have it before is the **exact*
logical equivalent of adding a gene to produce a useful quantity of an
insect specific poison (as per the specific thing being testing in this
case), and therefor adding *any* gene, at all, will make you grow extra
limb, turn purple, and explode... or, what ever the frak they think
golden rice (as appose to the slightly more plausible roundup-ready
products) is supposed to do, because its been "genetically engineered by
a mad scientist!"
Sigh...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/5/2013 6:02 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2013-02-05 15:09, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> 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!
>
lol
Don't even get me started on "formaldehyde". Its a bit wacko conspiracy
thing that is supposedly killing us all, and one of the reasons to avoid
"unnatural sweeteners" is that it produces it in the blood stream. And
article in Skeptical Enquirer went over that, pointing out that a) all
sugars, and other "sweet" substances, produces varying amounts of that,
naturally, in the bloodstream, as a byproduct, b) you would have to
drink like 10 diet sodas to get the equivalent "formaldehyde" in your
blood stream from it as a 12 oz glass (equivalent of one can of diet
soda) of tomato juice, and c) the latest "miracle" sweetener, called
truvia, stevia, etc., is processed from the plant leaf it comes out of,
into a sugar like, granulated, form, using... ding... ding... ding...
formaldehyde.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Walking just feels like I'm not achieving anything. I mean, my legs feel
> crippled after half an hour or so,
You're not going to build stamina by running unsustainably fast for 10
minutes at a time. Target longer times at slower speeds, you need to go
at a sustainable pace. Of course your legs will hurt if you're not used
to it. No pain no gain :-)
>> 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...
Sounds like a reasonable target to aim for (after some amount of
training of course) - aren't there people at the gym to advise you on
stuff like this?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:28:31 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> 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!
You seem to think, though, that it's a binary state. Either you go to
the gym full time to look like Schwarzenegger, or you sit on your butt
all day in front of a computer and have the endurance of a half dead
sloth.
Surely you realise there /is/ a middle ground.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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 seem to think, though, that it's a binary state. Either you go to
> the gym full time to look like Schwarzenegger, or you sit on your butt
> all day in front of a computer and have the endurance of a half dead
> sloth.
>
> Surely you realise there /is/ a middle ground.
Go read what I wrote. I said that visible muscle growth and stamina are
not the same thing. I also said that growing a set of muscles like
Arnold is an unrealistic goal, but improving my stamina *is* a realistic
goal, which is why I'm still going to the gym...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 08:37:32 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> 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 seem to think, though, that it's a binary state. Either you go to
>> the gym full time to look like Schwarzenegger, or you sit on your butt
>> all day in front of a computer and have the endurance of a half dead
>> sloth.
>>
>> Surely you realise there /is/ a middle ground.
>
> Go read what I wrote. I said that visible muscle growth and stamina are
> not the same thing. I also said that growing a set of muscles like
> Arnold is an unrealistic goal, but improving my stamina *is* a realistic
> goal, which is why I'm still going to the gym...
Which is good - but what you originally wrote seemed to indicate that if
you want to look like Ahnold, that's a full-time job or it's impossible.
I was pointing out that that again was another fallacy of the sort where
you say "this thing that some people obviously do is clearly impossible".
You might not have noticed it (though several of us have pointed it out)
that you have made a bad habit out of making these kinds of wild
assertions in the past.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/02/2013 08:55 AM, scott wrote:
>> Walking just feels like I'm not achieving anything. I mean, my legs feel
>> crippled after half an hour or so,
>
> You're not going to build stamina by running unsustainably fast for 10
> minutes at a time. Target longer times at slower speeds, you need to go
> at a sustainable pace. Of course your legs will hurt if you're not used
> to it. No pain no gain :-)
I didn't think 10 minutes of continuous, non-stop exercise was all that
bad, but hey.
>> If I could actually run for an hour straight and not *die*, that would
>> be quite impressive...
>
> Sounds like a reasonable target to aim for (after some amount of
> training of course) - aren't there people at the gym to advise you on
> stuff like this?
Yeah, you can pay for a personal trainer. No idea what that costs, but I
am kind of tempted...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:35:07 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Yeah, you can pay for a personal trainer. No idea what that costs, but I
> am kind of tempted...
If you do, that's great (I did that for a while, and where I live it
wasn't too expensive), but remember one important thing: They are
actually subject matter experts, and while SMEs do make mistakes from
time to time, don't assume that because your brain tells you that what
they're saying is something it thinks is impossible that your brain is
telling you the truth. ;)
IOW, pay attention to the trainer, and don't disregard what they tell you
because you've always assumed "that's impossible".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/02/2013 04:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> what you need is about 1 hour of aerobic exercise 5 or 6 times a week.
I currently have a cold. But up until then, me and my dad have been
spending one to two hours at the gym every weekday evening. It's nice to
have some company, and I think my dad enjoys it too. I'm doing a mixture
of resistance machines, the treadmill, the rowing machine, and whatever
else takes my fancy.
The gym got *real* popular in January. Apparently it gets quieter as the
year goes on...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
