Are there quick and easy weight-loss forms of temporary cancer?

I felt a lot better after I started doing 30 minutes of weight-bearing cardio just once a week. A LOT better.

7 days a week would be utterly impossible, unless I bought a machine and put it in my apartment, which I suppose would be possible, now that I think of it. Never mind.

Don't think about your weight.

Definitely. Weight is meaningless. The only measure you should care about is what you look like naked. In good lighting. Get that where you want it and your weight, whatever it is, will be fine.

Does completely dark count as good lighting? I know it makes me look better.

Also: get enough sleep. This makes a huge difference. (Both to your appetite and to how your body responds to exercise.)

It's really sad that I'm commenting on the esthetic point, but from what I've seen, this:

(2), and here's a secret: if you lose weight really quickly, you'll look kinda bad and sickly.

tends to be true. The sickly look resolves, but I had an awful moment once looking at a friend who'd lost 30lbs doing Weight Watchers, and was ecstatic, and wanted feedback about how great she looked. She looked like hell -- having gone from a pleasant looking stocky woman to deflated and haggard. On the other hand, after a couple of months at her new weight, she looked fine.

I also think seven days a week of exercise is crazy. Go with three or four, at most. Unless your "exercise" is your only physical activity. Then seven's probably right. But in that case you'd be much better off just working a little more exercise into your daily routine. Walking to the store for coffee. Taking the stairs instead of the elevator. Getting up and moving around occassionally while at work. Have some sort of active recreation.

Cigarettes also help. Also, cocaine.

I never read any exercise advice, so maybe this is as commonplace as all outdoors, but I highly recommend a ramp-up strategy for a running routine. Walking, then walking interspersed with running, then alternating every five minutes, then full running (a few days for each step). I'm a slug, but this routine once made it possible for me to set up a long-term 5-day-a-week 30-minute run habit with astonishing ease.

This advice is maddening, because I, like so many other women, would like to lose a fair chunk of weight, and I think you're right that this is an excellent way to go about it, and there's no possible way I'm going to set up a schedule to work out at a reliable time each day. I manage to go lift weights at lunch two or three times a week, but work is just too irregular to have a schedule I can lean on.

Yeah, that's good advice, Minivet, and I should have said something about it. I was thinking that if someone uses a heart-rate monitor, they end up doing something like that anyway, but yeah, totally right.

8: Times I've run, this is excellent advice. You want to do the half-hour, run till you really want to stop, then walk, repeat until your time is up. You end up running pretty far much sooner than you'd think.

there's no possible way I'm going to set up a schedule to work out at a reliable time each day

This is tough, I agree. I have an elliptical machine at home, and that makes it infinitely easier to exercise. (I also happen to have a great job, which lets me take a long lunch to swim, but that, obviously, is rare.)

I'd add a couple things.

There's no substitute for resistance training. Even if it's only a couple times a week, get used to doing some weight training. It'll maintain your bone density and joints in ways that cardio cannot.

Enjoyment makes a huge difference. It makes the routine amazingly easier to stick with. I, for example, enjoy climbing, so I try and maintain a membership at a climbing gym. I can do an hour or two of climbing without thinking about it because I'm having fun. 60 minutes of the stairmaster, however, would bore me to tears.

Embarrassingly, I have a Concept II at home (wedding present). But it's too loud to row before anyone else gets up in the morning, and I get home too late to make myself work out at night. (I try sometimes, but it works for a week or so and then I lose it.)

Getting the exercise just before dinner helps; the nausea and chest pain encourage taking smaller portions.

I find that coupling the decision to stop smoking with implementing an exercise routine is the shock the system needs for reprogramming after a nicotine addiction. So exercise, and quit smoking—that will help with the cardio, which is basically impossible for smokers. And go to church. And call your mother every once in a while!

But it's too loud to row before anyone else gets up in the morning

Screw that, they'll get used to it. I used to have one of those, and the noise isn't unpleasant, and it's rhythmic, so they'll be fine. Tell them it's time they sacrificed a little bit for Mom.

you really only have to think about your food like this: stop when you're full

Also, make sure you're drinking plenty of water while you eat. And if you still feel hungry, sometimes it pays to wait 10 or 15 minutes. For some people, it takes a few minutes for the body to catch up and signal you've had enough.

The rowing machine isn't in the kids' room. I'm not going to tell the guy who does almost all of the childcare, most of the housework, and packs me lunch "Screw you, you can lose an hour's sleep so I look pretty."

I have an elliptical machine at home

Holy crap, I blog with Richard Simmons.

What's the deal with "weight-bearing"? I've never heard this emphasized. I get my cardio on a recumbent exercise bike; only my ass bears weight. I don't want to run, because I weigh a lot. Bad?

I've always heard it emphasized, but I'm not exactly sure what it means -- that is, rowing seems to count, despite the fact that you're sitting down.

14: I'm jealous. I've wanted one of those for years. Instead I get sent out in the dark and the rain to run. But the erg really is a wonderful workout.

I do like it. Maybe when the kids are old enough to get themselves to school under their own power, I'll get back into it.

I don't want to run, because I weigh a lot.

Weighing a lot doesn't mean you can't run; it just means you have to start out doing walk/run combos. (This is one of the points John Bingham hammers at in No Need for Speed. I don't run, but it's an excellent book for anyone who's looking to start an exercise regimen.)

Also, how could swimming not help with weight loss? If the calories are being burned, they're being burned. I'm so confused. Mainly I'm horrified that Ogged has his own elliptical. I bet it's pink.

The weight played this role in my thinking: I don't want to beat the crap out of my knees and back, so I should get impact-free cardio.

What's the deal with "weight-bearing"? I've never heard this emphasized. I get my cardio on a recumbent exercise bike; only my ass bears weight. I don't want to run, because I weigh a lot. Bad?

When it comes to running, just no substitute for the real thing. Treadmills just aren't as hard because once you get that foot out in front of you the machine carries it back.

That being said, running on pavement can beat your knees to death, especially for heavier people.

Embarrassingly, I have a Concept II at home

Why is this embarrassing? I would love to have a Concept II. Btw, rowing is great exercise IF you actually know how to use the machine; most people who haven't actually rowed a vessel on water don't. It's a bit painful to watch at the gym (those poor backs) but at least there's almost always an available machine.

I'm not going to tell the guy who does almost all of the childcare, most of the housework, and packs me lunch "Screw you, you can lose an hour's sleep so I look pretty."

He'll learn to sleep through it, I'm telling you.

What's the deal with "weight-bearing"?

One thing for sure: it helps women build bone density and avoid osteoperoris. Another thing more controversially: I've heard it argued that it's more difficult to lose weight doing non weight-bearing exercise, but I don't know the science behind the claim. But I too have given up running, because of the pounding on the joints, hence the elliptical.

"Screw you, you can lose an hour's sleep so I look pretty."

Uh, maybe you should ask him. Because for a lot of guys, that trade off is a no brainer. Also, the stress thing. When my wife's exercising, she not only looks better, she feels better, and is much less likely to be a pain in the ass.

Treadmills just aren't as hard because once you get that foot out in front of you the machine carries it back.

You know, I'm as prone to Luddism as any, more so than most, and I doubt this. Times I've been running on the treadmill a lot, going for a run outdoors hasn't been more difficult. I'll believe you that a Stairmaster isn't anything like real stairs (although my gym has a weirdo stairs machine that's just a short escalator going down, and it's brutal) but what's your basis for saying a treadmill is actually easier than running?

29, 30: We've talked.

Oops, 28 was me.

I have also heard the bit about weight-bearing exercise, and that swimming is nearly unique in how ill-suited it is to losing weight, even while being good for cardiovascular fitness and functional strength.

I don't want to run Me neither, my feet and knees hurt when I do. Walking up-hill works well (or at least is keeping my internist very happy): 30 minutes at 3mph (or more) on a 3% (or more) grade. I do 30 minutes because it's the most I can do without getting totally bored no matter what's on the TV.

I used to have one of those, and the noise isn't unpleasant, and it's rhythmic, so they'll be fine.

Johnny Rotten had a quote about this.

28: It's embarrassing because I'm bitching about not being able to work out regularly while I've got a Concept 2 gathering dust.

29 is right, except that I think those are the reasons usually given for why one should actually bear some weights, not just do "weight-bearing cardio". Especially if you're going to include an ellipitcal in that category. Blech.

Also, I stopped with the heart monitor because, thanks to the extra beats that happen every now and then, it will freak me out by saying that my heart rate is 350. For a long time I didn't exercise because of fear. (Thank you again, asshole cardiologist, for not taking my concerns seriously.) Now I just don't wear a monitor.

If the calories are being burned, they're being burned. I'm so confused.

Like I say, I don't know what the mechanism is, but it seems to be a fact that swimming won't help you lose weight.

I'm baking chocolate chip cookies right now.

Oh, hell. Why be embarrassed about bitching? It's fun! No shame in fun!

Swimming is no good--it's not weight-bearing, and you'll hardly lose any weight at all.

This is why Olympic swimmers are all fat and flabby.

Hey, how's the rabbi-importation going?

Another Iron Law of Exercise is that the energy of activation has to be almost zero. If it's an hour schlep back and forth to the gym, most people will simply never, ever do it. If, however, you stick a TV and a treadmill (or pastel blue elliptical with ribbons on it, ogged) in some corner of your place , you can decide to exercise at the drop of the hat and it's far less boring. The downside is that you need a fairly big place for that.

42: Olympic swimmers do actually tend to have more body fat than other athletes of similar fitness levels.

If I had to guess about swimming, I'd say that most people are inefficient swimmers, and so their sustainable pace isn't much of a workout, or they go too hard, and can't keep their heart rate up for very long.

39: wow, that's wild.

Which is why Johnny Edwards is so perkily fit looking.

46: That sounds right to me. I'm a lousy but strong swimmer -- I'm very comfortable in the water, but I'm slow and my strokes are for shit. Back in high school I spent a while swimming with a friend for exercise, and an hour in the pool left me feeling all nice and limber, but not like I'd gotten a workout. The pace I could sustain wasn't any effort, and when I tried to speed up I blew up instantly.

Which is why Johnny Edwards is so perkily fit

No, it's because he dines exclusively on the trust funds of young Republicans.

but what's your basis for saying a treadmill is actually easier than running?

When your foot hits the ground in front of you running on a regular surface, you then are propelling yourself forward against gravity, friction, etc. The ground is moving beneath you on a treadmill, and you can kind of just let your foot be carried back. In practice, when people who do all their running on a treadmill try and duplicate their speeds on a regular surface, they usually get a nasty surprise.

25: Yeah, that's the one thing on Ogged's list I don't believe.

In the end, losing weight is about one thing: burning off more calories than you take in, and that pretty much means eating less and/or exercising more. (In theory, you might be able to adjust your rest metabolism, but I'm very skeptical about claims to be able to do this. I read a few days ago that researchers have found that increasing muscle mass doesn't work.)

Everything else is just psychological tricks to help you do one of those two things.

I have no dieting advice. (Although I did lose ten pounds when I gave up meat. I ultimately gained it back, and then some, over the course of ten years.) My only exercise advice is "Do something fun," because otherwise you'll never stick to it. For me, that's cycling and Dance Dance Revolution.

In practice, when people who do all their running on a treadmill try and duplicate their speeds on a regular surface, they usually get a nasty surprise.

Sure, though that also has to do with the difficulty of pacing oneself, but for the purposes of losing weight, the treadmill is fine (pounding aside).

If you really want to get serious about this and/or if you're a gadget geek, get a heart-rate monitor.

Does anyone have a brand recommendation? Or, for that matter, warning?

I sort of get the logic, but it doesn't feel that way when I go from treadmill running to outdoor running. (also, note that gravity operates in the vertical plane equally on the treadmill runner and the outdoor runner alike, and unless you really have trouble picking your feet up, friction against the ground shouldn't be an issue. The physics that would make treadmill running easier are not clear to me.)

Also, all you elliptical haters, mine doesn't have the arm doohickies, and I don't hold on to anything when I use it; try it that way, and I'll bet you feel it through all your hip stabilizers. MANLY.

Aren't polar heart monitors the standard brand? I think so. A low-end Polar monitor worked fine for me.

Barring the freakouts.

That was my heart's problem, not the monitor's.

Does anyone have a brand recommendation?

Polar is the big name; here's a round-up.

feel it through all your hip stabilizers ranks up with luxurious cleansing, I think.

You know what I've found works really well? An hour of cardio five days a week, coupled with weight training, stretching, and yoga, with sensible meals during the day, and then enough job stress during the workweek to vomit daily before the morning commute as well as recurrent insomnia. Nearly twenty pounds in a month, woo! This is better than that amoeba I picked up once.

What's preventing the haggard is the pure, uncut joy of bringing the incompetents who caused the job stress _down_, and there's _nothing_ they can do about it. It's so sweet, I feel like I'm Quarter Done again.

Anyway.

How do you get that kind of job stress in the time left over after the cardio?

55- running outside you have to push yourself forward. Running on a treadmill you'd basically just swinging your legs. It's exercise, but it's not the same. That said, it's still fine. Also, setting the treadmill at a slight incline is supposed to give you a workout physiologically* equal to running on flat ground.

* I first typed biomechanically, then erased it. I then realized I don't have a great grasp on the difference between those two words. I don't know which is right here. Maybe neither one.

It's all about burning more calories than you eat, but the amount of calories your body burns is in no way constant, and only sort of easily manipulated.

Weight-bearing cardio could convince your body that if it was lighter all of this running around would be much easier, in a way that swimming doesn't. Swimming also takes place in a cold and very thermally conductive environment, which could also convince your body to retain fat.

I started a regular exercise routine last week, coincident with moving from a job I hated to one I like; I am feeling better this week and I think both transitions play a role. The exercise is making me intensely aware of my flabby bits, which are primarily a pot belly and fat on my chest, also some fat on my thighs. When I run the front of my body jiggles on each impact and it feels bad. I am hoping this will tighten up in fairly short order, like a month, and then the fat will start going away.

My routine now consists of running, stretching, squats, crunches, rowing machine; but not a lot of any one thing. (The most time of any of those is spent on stretching.) I am thinking as I get into it, I will break up the routine some, so like one day I just run, another day I just do squats and crunches and maybe some weights, like that. Hoping that moving forward, my endurance will get a little better so I am able to do one activity for a long while.

but it doesn't feel that way when I go from treadmill running to outdoor running.

In my experience, it's not as noticeable in a regular workout as it is when you're trying to really push your upper limits.

(Also: if my endurance is up to it, in about 4 months I will be able to start riding my bike to work, which would be excellent -- it is 7 miles, up and down two very significant hills.)

Tip--If you want to work out on the treadmill and still be in shape for running on pavement or cross-country, set the incline on it a little.

Also, as a devoted swimmer, I must agree that swimming will never help you lose any weight at all. The studies on this are quite clear. It will develop muscle and endurance and make your body look better, but if you are looking to drop a significant number of pounds, it will not help. Swimming also increases the appetite while running decreases it. This is why a devoted swimmer is now learning how to run (which generally sucks all over except for the losing weight and being able to wear headphones part)

I wish there was some form of exercise I didn't find incredibly boring. I haven't found any, other than actual sports, and am hoping to join a soccer league now that I've been doing this weekly cardio thing and my endurance has gone from 0% to 0.1% of Lance Armstrong's.

I do a half an hour on one of those Elliptical machines every week, alternating between running hard and semi-running not so hard, watching the TV at the gym. If the gym didn't have TVs, I probably wouldn't do it, because it would be horribly boring, and it just doesn't feel right to have a music-producing device attached to me as I run (it feels unbalanced and like it's about to fall off...plus I don't own one).

If I had an elliptical machine at home, I could do that more days than not. But having to go to the gym makes it about a two-hour commitment just to do that half hour. I usually don't look forward to it, especially in the winter.

Ned, the music-producing device makes a huge difference. There are tiny clip-on flash players you can get.

Jealous of the Concept II. Those are great.

If you don't want to disturbe the husband maybe you should move it to one of the kids' rooms. Then, if they complain, like ogged said, tell them it's time they sacrificed a little bit for Mom.

43: Hey, how's the rabbi-importation going?

The search is ongoing. We found one guy who will come from New York to Tokyo if we pay his airfare, hotel, and expenses for the trip — PLUS an additional $4,000 fee.

While this convinces me that he is definitely Jewish, it is, unfortunately, more than I am prepared to spend on rabbinical services at this time.

If you don't want to disturbe the husband maybe you should move it to one of the kids' rooms.

Or put it outside.

Or put it outside.

What, on the street?

I second the "make it fun" thing. Join an adult league and play basketball or soccer or ultimate frisbee.

For fun exercise, there's little better than energetic sex. 30 minutes twice a day should keep you in top shape.

The first few weeks are hard. You'll want to quit. Don't. The weeks after that are easy; you'll feel better, and won't want to stop.

Unless you're me, apparently. Sure, I'm strongly attached to walking to and from work, but the gym? I went regularly for 4 months or so and then gave it up with pleasure. Fucking gym, good ol' fucking gym. How I hate it.

I wish there was some form of exercise I didn't find incredibly boring.

Seriously, try indoor climbing dude. And you don't need to rope up or anything. Just a decent pair of shoes and a chalk bag so you can boulder. Assuming you're a medium or smallish sized guy of course. It tends to be a frustrating endeavor if you're 250 pounds.

Admittedly, I'm on a climbing kick lately because after a relatively dry 3 or 4 years, there's finally a good gym being put in near my house. And the guy they've hired to set problems is a godamn genius.

Climbing is not such a good way to lose weight, is it, gswift?

#72: I missed the original Jealous of the Concept, but it sounds cool.

You aren't working out if shortly before you begin cooldown you don't feel like you're going to die. Alternate strength and cardio-type workouts for a really good result.

I find books on tape to be a good motivator when I exercise outside. It helps me feel more productive than just listening to music and, if it's a mystery or Harry Potter or something, it will often keep me going longer than I would have otherwise so I can hear how the chapter ends. That's one of the things that I don't like about the gym in comparison -- too many distractions to pay attention to one. So, instead, I will be going later tonight to watch Veronica Mars.

I wish there was some form of exercise I didn't find incredibly boring.

Here it is. You're welcome.

You aren't working out if shortly before you begin cooldown you don't feel like you're going to die.

Are you kidding? Because this is definitely not true.

Also, that's a bad sign for Veronica Mars. It has been demoted from "show I carve out a special place for in my week" to "show I watch at the gym".

Climbing is not such a good way to lose weight, is it, gswift?

It can be, if you're watching your diet, doing it regularly, etc. For most people, you'll get stronger and more muscular, but not bulkier, and often you'll lighten up quite a bit.

A couple reasons why.

1. It's a much harder workout than people realize, and is more of a true full body workout than something like a treadmill. Besides the upper body work, it heavily works your torso, and there's more leg and hip involved than you might think.

2. Easier to do longer durations. People tend to do it because they're having a good time. An hour or two can fly by, which isn't the case for a lot of other workouts.

85 is wrong. You definitely ought to feel like you're going to die when you're don'e working out. But I think again we may be meaning different things here. Certainly you shouldn't do that 7 days a week. You ought to be "active" at least some every day, and if that's what you call "working out", then no, you shouldn't feel like you're going to die after every workout, or you're quickly going to wear your body down. Most days your activity should be light and fun. But once or twice a week, you ought to damn near kill yourself. You ought to come out of the workout feeling exactly as you would if you'd just spent a half hour fighting a large bear for your life.

Gadzooks. This is weight loss advice for people who aren't, presumably, serious exercisers. If you want to become really fit, then yeah, you need to push yourself--otherwise, there's no need.

63: Weekends the hour as part of a whole routine; weekdays, sometimes I split mornings and evenings, but usually just after work. No big thing, and I still get back home in time to not watch TiVo.

I mean that for 3-4 sessions per week, you should be very, very fatigued by the end. Perhaps "die" is overstating it.

I mean, if you're just "punching the clock," you're not going to improve.

88: fighting a large bear can be a good workout, but the weight loss tends to be hard to control and very much concentrated in specific limbs.

>you should be very, very fatigued by the end

Not if the goal is to lose 10 lbs.

Disagree, baa. Works just fine.

4a*) I cannot recommend weight training enough, especially for women. Weight-bearing; helps with bone density, posture. Makes you stronger, which is good for all sorts of things. You need cardio to drop the fat that's covering the muscles, but I think I'd recommend four days of cardio and three days of weight training, and I'd drop a cardio before a weight training. (She says, having been a lazy ass for two months.)

Also, yoga is great for you, makes you strong and limber, but doesn't make you thin. Very good for you, and if you're lifting weights, it helps you remember to stretch your hamstrings.

Roommate: "But the stars do yoga and they look hot."
Cala: "Yes, yoga works great with a cocaine habit and an eating disorder."

5*) If you're drinking soda or fruit juice, lose it. Drink water instead. Otherwise, you know what's healthy. Screw dieting.

8) Don't go overboard in the first month. Your goal for the first month should be to make exercising a habit. Too many people try to whip themselves into shape, and they're out of the gym by February. Worry about the weight later, first month, go all Aristotle style and form a habit..

Also, it's easier to slack on cardio than it is on lifting. Why? Because it's easy to slow down, but racking up less weight takes a conscious effort.

Podrunner, which you can get free on iTunes, is great for cardio, because the dj mixes it to a certain number of beats per minute. If you're like me, you end up working hard even if you're just running because you try to stay on the beat.

Two tips:

1. Punch the fucking heavy bag. It is the only thing that reliably works, in terms of both making you very strong very quickly, and being easy to stick at.

2. The brain, under stress, is an organ which is capable of consuming up to 50% of the oxygen and calories in your body. I can personally testify that if you are put in charge of a large market-maker's book in stocks of which you have more or less no experience trading, it is possible to lose as much as 10kg in weight over the course of a three week annual reporting season, despite consuming more than 5000 calories in food and alcohol per day. Probably best to get an unnamed European bank to pick up the tab though, because although this is an efficient way of losing weight, at EUR8m of trading losses it isn't cheap.

Shorter 98: you fat people just don't think hard enough.

I hate the lot of you. It's bad enough that the Unfoggedtariat is brilliant, highly educated, good looking and clever; now I find out that you all also find time to exercise. I am going to go eat a doughnut and contemplate how pathetic I am. [goes off sulking]

To be clear, 77 was in no way a joke.

Timex makes a line of heart rate monitors that cost less than Polar and look cooler, and as far as I can tell, work just as well.

The only kinds of exercise that I actually *like* are those accompanied by pleasantly distracting views: rowing on water, running through a nice park or countryside, or lifting at a university gym with all the little frat hotties. The best thing that ever happened to me as far as managing gym boredom was podcasting - the news and talk stuff works better for me than music when distraction from pain is called for.

I had two great episodes of effortless weight loss in my life. First was when I went to college and stopped eating my mother's homemade southern cooking. You should have heard the wailing when I went home for Thanksgiving. The second was in grad school when I had to stop drinking beer for a while because of some medicine I was taking. That incident has made me almost consider giving up beer a few times since, but I always come to my senses.

99: "fat" s/b "fat young people without a good word for anyone"

Can I have a doughnut, too?

9) If you've just started exercising again, it's likely that your appetite will go through the roof. Don't worry about it. Your body will get used to it; just try to pig out on healthy things.

101: "So, are you sexually active?"

"Nah, mostly I just lie there."

77 + 88: The Brock Landers Diet = fuck the shit out of bears

Idealist, if it makes you feel any better, I'm not really clever.

2. The brain, under stress, is an organ which is capable of consuming up to 50% of the oxygen and calories in your body.

Strictly speaking, no.

Losing 8 million Euros of other people's money still sounds like an efficient way to lose weight, though.

96, 97: Yay for lifting! In my personal experience, other than a period of crazed atkins dieting, lifting is the easiest way for me to become skinnier (and also lose weight). And it's also a good opportunity to plug http://www.stumptuous.com, which truly deserves it.

Would anybody like LizardBreath or the cerebrocrat care to expand a bit on proper posture for using a rowing machine? Where would I feel it if I were using it properly? -- Right now it seems like I'm keeping my back fairly rigid at a pretty constant angle to the vertical, and feeling it mostly in my shoulders.

The physics that would make treadmill running easier are not clear to me.

Nor to me. Running and walking are just controlled continuous falls, and the effort expended is in recovering the vertical height and some in overcoming air resistance. Air resistance when walking is almost nothing. You lose the air resistance while running on a treadmill but the only other thing it's doing is allowing you to fall in the same place every time. Setting an incline on the 'mill increases the work because it's increasing the vertical movement.

We must have a physicist around here. What did I miss?

All wrong. You start all the way forward with your shins vertical, your arms extended, and your body leaning forward but not all that far -- maybe 30° forward of vertical? Holding your back firm so you don't lean any further forward (this is a big deal -- there's a tendency to lean further forward as your ass moves back), push your knees down and straighten your legs. Now lean back, with your arms still straight out in front, but again, not too far -- 25° or 30° behind the vertical. Now bring your arms in so the handle hits your chest an inch or two below your nipples.

When you put it all together, the bits overlap some, but if you try to keep it legs, then back, then arms, you'll be doing it pretty much right.

But when you're running on a treadmill you don't have to propel yourself forward. You just have to keep from falling by getting your next leg under you again.

from 64: "Running on a treadmill you'd basically just swinging your legs. It's exercise, but it's not the same."

I'm curious: do all of you regular exercisers subscribe to this idea that if you do if for a few weeks, you'll stop wanting to stop?

111: That's my reading. I'll buy gswift's claim that it makes a difference at high speed, because then things like an imperfect surface, or wind, or whatever is going to kick in and affect you. But there shouldn't be a fundamental difference.

114: No. I like being in good shape, and I'm naturally pretty strong so it's rewarding, but I suck at getting in an exercise groove. My life is an endless stream of three months in a routine, three weeks off, back into it for four months, off a month, on for two months, and back off for two. Once I miss a couple of days, I'm just lost. This means that I never actually make any progress, but I figure I'm disintegrating at a slower rate.

When you put it all together, the bits overlap some, but if you try to keep it legs, then back, then arms, you'll be doing it pretty much right.

This is describing rowing, or the Brock Landers way?

114: No. I don't. I exercise all the time, but I don't like much of it besides playing soccer. I go jogging a lot, but only because it's the quickest, most efficient way to get exercised.

Huh, thanks. I'll give it a try. I had a hunch I was suppos'd to be doing something with my hips.

113: But you're not accelerating when you're running -- it doesn't take force to keep a body moving at a constant speed. Once you've got your body up to speed, you're just moving your legs along under it to keep from falling -- the physics of it isn't any different than if you were motionless over a moving treadmill.

How to row. I'm sure there are videos online.

120: I see your point, but I don't think you've got much forward momemtum when you're jogging along. It's pretty easy to come to a stop, unlike stopping sprinting, which can be pretty jarring. I think with each step, a lot of your force gets transferred into the ground, not into forward mortion.

In contrast, I think a stationary bike very well simulates a real bike, because of your argument.

Go look at this http://www.concept2.com/us/training/start/ , there's a little movie of someone rowing properly. The vast majority of the force comes from your thighs, some from your back, and just a little from your arms and shoulders.

122: Right, but there's still no reason to think that pushing yourself forward against a treadmill sliding away under you is importantly different than pushing yourself forward against the stationary ground. The forward motion doesn't have an effect different from being stationary so long as it's not accelerated.

OT, have any of you backwardsly-handled folks used elgooG?

But you *aren't* pushing yourself forward on a treadmill. Your back leg does not do any work. You're just catching yourself with your front leg.

And by the way, LB, am I right in thinking that a rowing machine must be not too much like actual rowing? I mean leaving aside the whole not-getting-splashed thing, if you're rowing in a boat isn't the angle of the oar constantly changing as you pull it?

111: I ain't no physicist, but it seems like when you're running for real, in order to move forward relative to the ground, you have to push upward to overcome gravity and get free of the drag of the ground's friction, AND you have to push the mass of you body forward against inertia. On a treadmill, the ground is already moving horizontally, and the up & down part will do most of the work of keeping your body constant in space. Probably still better to hear from a physicist.

110: Rowing machine basics -
1) only use a concept 2
2) do not set the resistance all the way high
3) the vast majority of the work is done with your legs
4) what feels intuitively right to you when you sit down on the thing, is wrong
5) from the catch/front position, the sequence goes: extend legs, lean back, contract arms; extend arms, lean forward, contract legs. Think of doing it in sequence and not all together.
6) concept 2's attempt to simulate the viscosity of water, so if you want more resistance, you get it by pushing off faster with your legs. The overall pace needn't (and shouldn't) be fast, just the leg extension. Your lower back and upper body should be able to draft off the momentum of your legs. If your back, shoulders, or arms are getting tired and your legs aren't, you're doing it wrong.

"the cerebrocrat" sounds totally cooler than just "cerebrocrat," a handle I've been regretting for some time now. I believe I may keep it.

114: Hell no. I will always hate exercising. Always. I'm with you on this, RFTS. People who say they love it ... I don't really trust them.

Which brings me to my hearty endorsement of Ogged's #6, the importance of scheduling: having a workout buddy is great for this, especially if you're so weak-willed that letting yourself down is nothing new but not so callous that letting others down no longer motives. Man, I wish I had a workout buddy.

Clearly, I took too long to write that comment. What everybody else said.

129: motives s/b motivates. Christ.

Man, I wish I had a workout buddy.

It makes a huge difference.

Man, I wish I had a workout buddy.

ATM

Have they built a rowing machine yet that mimics the awesome power of a whaleboat? The ten-foot wooden oars are splendidly awkward, and you build up those lady-pleasing asymmetical muscles.

126, 128: Try it this way. Get off the treadmill, and go get on a train. Start running down the aisle, toward the back of the train, as the train moves slowly forward. If you're running at the same speed as the train, you're staying at one place over the ground. But that seems like really running, right?

Now explain why that's physically different from the treadmill. I don't think it is.

127: It's more like rowing on the water than anything else is, but not all that much. The big thing about the water is that the oar has strong opinions about where it's going next, particularly if you're going fast.

130: Although you hit the all important brand-loyalty. There may be other rowing machines than the Concept 2 that aren't shit, but most of them are.

Damn, those Concept 2s are expensive.

it doesn't take force to keep a body moving at a constant speed. Once you've got your body up to speed, you're just moving your legs along under it to keep from falling -- the physics of it isn't any different than if you were motionless over a moving treadmill.

I don't think that's right. If you're moving forward over a stationary ground, every time your foot hits the ground the friction is working opposite your forward momentum, so each movement has to get you out of contact with the ground, and overcome the loss of momentum. If you're remaining still over a moving ground, more of the work can be done by just moving upward to break free of the friction. The treadmill motor is doing part of the work of maintaining relative forward momentum.

But you *aren't* pushing yourself forward on a treadmill

But you are, the same amount as you would outside at the same speed, because otherwise you end up at the back of the 'mill on the floor looking really foolish.

As for the difference in the feel of stopping between jogging and sprinting, the kinetic energy that has to be dissipated is related to the square of the velocity, so there's a whole lot more (given the same mass) if you're running like a bat out of hell.

Machines are like rowing on the water except for that part where if you have improper technique, the end of your oar dips into the water at the wrong moment and gets a lot of resistance, and the other end of your oar knocks you in the chest and out of the boat. That's called "catching a crab."

#126 is wrong. You are quite clearly pushing yourself off the surface of the treadmill with your back leg. If you did not, you would fall off the back of the treadmill as it rolled backwards.

135: Feather!

If you're running at speeds under 9 miles an hour (a very fast 6:40-minute-mile pace), treadmill running burns about the same number of calories as running outdoors, says John Porcari, Ph.D., a professor in the department of exercise and sports science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. But if you run faster than 9 mph, you'll burn fewer calories on the treadmill. "The difference can be up to 8 percent," Porcari says. "That's because you don't have to overcome wind resistance and because the treadmill belt does propel you along a bit."

(142 would have said "135, 140:" if I had read 140 before I posted it.

)

The important thing here is CLIMBING RULES.

If you're running at speeds under 9 miles an hour (a very fast 6:40-minute-mile pace), treadmill running burns about the same number of calories as running outdoors, says John Porcari, Ph.D., a professor in the department of exercise and sports science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

Good. Now, does the surface on which you run affect the damage to your joints?

Isn't that by John Irving?

CLIMBING RULES

BUT NOT FOR LARGE PEOPLE?

148 -> 146

I used to jog 5 miles a day, and was in great shape. I had to stop due to shin splints.

Screw running... has anyone figured out what would happen if you put a jet on a treadmill? Would it be able to take off?

You moving relative to the ground and the ground moving relative to you should be indistinguishable. F=ma and all that.

However, I bet that the inertia of the treadmill system is much smaller than the inertia of the ground, which could make a difference in the same way that a springy track helps you run faster, except horizontally instead of vertically.

asymmetical muscles.

I'm still asymmetrical from rowing way back in college -- not to look at, and not much, but I can always get a little more force out of my left shoulder than my right.

BUT NOT FOR LARGE PEOPLE?

Afraid not. Upside, lots of fit people to ogle. Downside (for me anyways), very high ratio of men to women.

Downside (for me anyways), very high ratio of men to women.

That doesn't sound like it has much to do with the unsuitability of the activity for large people.

135, 141

Maybe in light of 143, they burn the same amount of calories. But I still maintain that they're different exercises.

"Why don't you end up on the floor behind the machine, if you're not pushing off with your back leg?"

Your torso is staying stationary. You're allowing your back leg to drift backwards while swinging your front leg forward. But you never have to pole vault your weight up and over your front leg - it will coast backwards under you and you just have to straighten up over it.

With the train...I dunno. I give up.

allowing your back leg to drift backwards while swinging your front leg forward

And eventually you are doing the splits.

I just know that you can slightly cheat the treadmill when you're super tired and on the "sprint" portion of those workouts - the way you do it is, you leap a little bit extra with each stride, slowing down your actual pace and allowing more path to zoom by underneath you. You can't cheat on pavement.

Commenting on Ogged's original post without having read any comments:

Oh my dear, you are right in all of this.

Smile. Oh, and boost your intake of folic acid.

You can get rid of shin splints and prevent them. You lift up your toes, like flex them so that you can feel it in your shin. Hold it for a little bit, a bunch of times. Repeat on a regular basis. It really works.

Also, pliés.

If running on the treadmill is just waving your legs, why am I fucking exhausted after 20 minutes? (Actually, used to be exhausted, since I can't run these days, having torn my something-or-other tendon in a bad fall during my first and last experience of bouldering and the doctor says running will make it worse and there will be no way to fix it, so there's an upside to everything.) I need a pink elliptical trainer. With handles.

Anyway, a trainer I talked to said the main disadvantage to running on the treadmill is it won't improve your balance or proprioception the way running outdoors on uneven terrain will.

Sorry about the torn something-or-other! I hope it heals at some point. Thanks for the excellent new word.

Also, pliés.

Perhaps for you and heebie, but in addition to being totally gay, getting caught would result in being the the butt of jokes from my daughters for years.

Great, great post Ogged.

A few things to add -

A) I think weight is a useful indicator, but only in relative terms. If you know you are in poor shape, losing a few pounds through diet/exercise is probably good. Being obsessed about a certain number isn't. (unless you know what your ideal "playing weight" is from experience, and want to get back to there, or at least close because you probably don't have the time you did in college/HS plus you are probably a little bigger than you were than regardless)

B) losing weight is all about calorie differential 3500~1 lb. That actually means that losing 1lb per week isn't that daunting at the start, because it's probably not that difficult to cut 100-200 calories off your diet (switch to diet soda, or even better, water), and add 3-4 decent workouts, and you are basically there.

C) re weight training. It's hard to judge by weight, but you will notice an aesthetic difference much sooner than on the scale. Your initial fat loss will be countered by your gain in muscle mass. But you will look leaner, and then the weight will start to come off, as the greater muscle will burn calories faster.

D) re: eating - don't eat less than 3 hours before bed. Period.

E) variety. I know pickup basketball isn't the most efficient workout possible, but I can make myself do it much more often. Soccer would be even better, but I suck at it. And it's hard to find Ultimate in the winter, so hoops it is. Combine this with a few cardio workouts per week and you're golden.

F) Most importantly, go at a sustainable pace. By which I mean, I think you are crazy if you take Ogged's advice and jump right it a 70% max-hr for 30 minutes 5 times per week. You'll either destroy your joints or burn out or both. From scratch, it will probably take you about 3 months to build up to that, try starting at 40-50% max/hr for 20 minutes 3 times per week, and gradually build in intensity, duration and frequency

And all that said, my New Years resolution was still partially for weight loss...

the important thing is that the cardio makes you pant and sweat, and your body is moving all over. Rowing machine is great. the bear fucking is quate accurate. If you look around a gym there like 80% of people just there putting in their time dicking around on cardio machines.

Also, its not the muscle itself which uses more calories, although it uses marginally more; its the energy used in repairing muscle that uses a lot of calories. Everyone concerned with keeping less body fat should be lifting (and not those damn pink weights either; the big ones that make your arm quit after

also if you're lifting (or doing endurance3 work) make sure to eat ennough protein. this means meat or protein powder, a bowl of bean soup is gerat but not your daily amount.

also, if youre really fucking badass, you could do interval training. You can get an awsome working in 20 minutes or so, but I've never made it. I try every year or so and just lay down for the death.

168: Oh Jeebus, I look for the nearest garbage can just at the thought...

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but I will say that while the jist of the post is sound, I have a kneejerk aversion to all this talk of heart rates and "don't think about weight, but keep in mind that things like yoga won't help you lose weight" and walking is for when you're a lazy ass who's just getting started. Walking, as it happens, is a weight-bearing form of cardiovascular exercise, and there's nothing lazy about people who primarily use public transportation and walk for the vast majority of their errands. That, and some yoga or swimming, are *fine* exercise programs for most people.

Plus, gyms are really fucking boring.

This thread needs something cute on a treadmill, complete with inspirational music. So here it is.

Although the point about weight-bearing exercise is a really good one, and too many women ignore it. Though if you're walking home with a toddler every day and carrying him up the hill along with groceries, again, that's pretty good weight-bearing exercise.

The post is for people who want to lose weight, B, you fat ass.

you leap a little bit extra with each stride

159: Which burns a little extra energy, right? It has to, you can't fool Father Newton.

The treadmill situation isn't really any different from that of those B-29s caught in the jet stream while heading for Japan. Their airspeed indicators show around 350mph, they're burning fuel, they're using oil, there's wear on the engines, all the controls work just fine, but they're not getting anywhere relative to the outside world. The same applies to those swimming gadgets that provide a current of water to swim against. LB's train experiment is another perfect example.

Something cute on a treadmill.

B gets the jist, but does she get the gism?

174 - Are you really explaining to me how a treadmill works?

More cute things on treadmills. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI

Tasty thing on treadmill.

That was pretty cool.

there's nothing lazy about people who primarily use public transportation and walk for the vast majority of their errands

And then there are people who live in southern California.

And then there are people who live in SoCal and own one car, which their partners use to commute, so that they walk everywhere most of the time.

173: I know, and I said that the jist of it was stuff I agreed with and that my primary objections were a kneejerk aversion to, among other things, focusing on "losing weight" rather than getting in shape.

That said, I really do need to do something about the latter; walking isn't enough now that there are no hills or twenty-pound babies to tote up them any more.

My advice: drink beer and play fast music. (N.B. this regimen will cease to work if one of your bandmates heads to Philippines for month.)

^ "a"

That sounds like fun, but kinda impractical.

185: Yep. Cf. my current cookie pouch.

Well, I blame mine on the pregnancy and the c-section, but the result of those trials means I can't really do that much drinking or loud music playing these days.

It sounds so adorable when you call it a "cookie pouch"!!!!

188: it's eekbeat's coinage, credit where due, sir.

Honestly, is there anything she does that isn't adorable?

Very little, to be sure.

B, I think the operating assumption in the post is that people looking to burn post-holiday weight want to lose weight and look better, not just get fit or be healthy. It's sort of a refreshingly honest take on fitness, because most people probably just want to look good naked, and don't really care whether they'd be healthier at five more pounds.

And yeah, if you're looking to lose weight, yoga ain't gonna do it. Doesn't mean it's not healthy, but if you have half an hour a day to work out and you want to shed fat, yoga's not where you need to be spending your time.

Depends on the yoga. I've never met anyone who practiced regularly who was fat, but it's not really a great heart/lung workout--which is why I agreed with Ogged's saying that people should do something that's a little more of a cardiovascular challenge as well.

I've never seen anyone fat do yoga, but I've never seen anyone drop 20 pounds from it. I think that it's likely true (sample size: universities) that people signing up for a yoga class are likely to be doing cardio or dance or something more intensive also.

The sun salutation/warrior sequence in a briskly paced 75 minute vinyasa class is weight bearing aerobic exercise, and in a class that long it will usually last a half hour.

It's great exercise. I'm not very skilled at yoga yet, but I like my class a lot and you do learn a lot about what your body can do, and where it's strengths and weaknesses are. Plus, improved posture for me at least was one of the great side benefits.

I still maintain that yoga's not the most efficient way if all you care about is losing weight. It's probably the best if you want to become more flexible, or improve your balance, or strengthen teeny-weeny muscles you didn't know you had.

This is my favorite yoga pose.

195: Agreed. I like Ashtanga for the same reason: plenty of weight, it's demanding and moves quickly enough that you get the cardiovascular thing going, and set sequences so you can learn 'em and practice outside of class. But I'm willing to allow that *most* yoga isn't an aerobic workout.

There should be more sporting teams for adults. I'd try to find an old man's soccer team, but I'm no good at soccer. Sports where you do lots of sprinting, with short rests in-between, both fun and very very good for you.

There's probably an Ultimate or flag football league near you, textualist.

Text, have a few kids and make your own soccer team.

Flag football is for eunuchs. And not enough old men play ultimate.

200: But that would require playing Ultimate or flag football. (*Flag* football? What do you think text is, a Kennedy?)

Might take a while for the kids to walk and learn to kick the ball.

I have a college friend who plays in a recreational soccer league, so I know they exist, and he never played at any level beyond high school, so they don't require massive amounts of talent.

There are should be adult soccer leagues in any city of decent size; the ones in SF range from "let's get together and kick the ball around" (with rules designed to involve everyone in the game) to high-level amateur.

You guys are slagging flag football and talking about soccer instead. It's a good thing Bridgeplate's not around to see this.

playing soccer is seriously the highlight of my week.

I'm now going to play ogged's usual role of person asking advice who cannot be satisfied with advice. To whit: I never played soccer past the age of 7, except in gym class, and yet, how shall I say this, I do not want to play on a team with people who suck. And yet, I'm quite sure that I suck very much.

I'm pretty happy with my fitness routine. Just saying, you know, it's cool to play soccer with old people, if that works for you.

What's happened to this Bridgeplate person?

I think SB is hiatusing.

And I think these flag footballers would kick your ass.

There's a good chance of that.

And I think these flag footballers would kick your ass.

"kick" s/b "slap". And from what I recall, you wear the flags more on your hips than your ass...

Flag football is stupid. Real football is dangerous. Soccer's the way to go.

Yoga may not be the most efficient weight loss type activity, in that there's lots of time you spend doing non-aerobic things. Although sometimes I wonder if the aerobic portion of vinyasa isn't better for weight loss than the cardio machines I usually do, because, for reasons I don't understand, many advice givers insist you should keep your heart rate in a lower band for weight loss, but the cardio machines are boring if you don't push yourself into the band that's supposed to be for cardiovascular fitness, or even beyond that. Yoga is interesting at a heart rate that's substantially quickened but not as pounding as one needs to have fun on the elliptical.

Anyway, I don't know what kind of yoga the rest of the world does, but my main experience with yoga has been at New York gyms, where I imagine the instructors expect their students to be interested in getting lots of exercise in class and run their classes that way.

many advice givers insist you should keep your heart rate in a lower band for weight loss

They're confused by the fact that at lower intensities you burn more fat as a proportion of total calories burned--you still burn more fat (and more total calories) in absolute terms at higher intensities (as long as you stay at aerobic (as opposed to anaerobic) levels). Brief explanation here.

The importance of being in shape shouldn't be understated, but for the purposes of losing weight, I think the Shargi-la diet, (previously blogged somewhere here at Unfogged) is a good plan.

Shangri-la, that is.

I desperately need better posture.

hmm. It appears according to this page that I not infrequently work out in the anaerobic zone. If I'm on the elliptical my heart rate is usually above 160, and I sometimes shove up to 185 or so. I guess I should stop that.

Downward dog, b-wo. It'll change your life.

Bridgeplate is presently doing Standpipey things in a location with unreliable internet access. Standpipe will return shortly.

Yoga is not supposed to be a cardiovascular activity. It's for achieving bodily awareness, core body strength, awareness of positioning. They're called postures for a reason. Not poses.

It's a good supplement to cardiovascular activity, but shouldn't be a substitute. Yoga can be, and is, weight-bearing, insofar as you're bearing your own weight.

With some background training in yoga, I think you can do much better in weight-training and cardio stuff. I know much more now about how I should be positioning myself in virtually any activity, where I should and shouldn't be feeling it.

Actually, I'd probably be wasting a lot of time, physically, if I hadn't done yoga training before I started working on weight machines and the beloved elliptical in recent months (due to back problems).

Also, what are "hip stabilizers" as opposed to hip flexors?

I think they're the same thing.

I think you're right.

I guess I should stop that.

Not necessarily. If you can stay up there for an extended period of time without feeling like you're about to collapse, then you're probably fine. That stuff is just a guide to keep you from over-exerting yourself.

Meaning, the aerobic/anaerobic line differs from person to person, depending on your fitness level (among other things). If you're able to keep it up for 30-45 minutes straight, you're likely not in the anaerobic zone.

That said, 185 is pretty damn high.

Many deep thoughts on yoga from parsimon, whose handle is very close to the fruit beloved by Asians far and wide, the persimmon.

I believe gswift is known for tangential thoughts.

There's nothing deep there about yoga, in any case. Those who think it's about Working Out are wrong, that's all.

Don't be disrespectin' the natives, mang. Do your sun salutation at the bus stop in the morning.

Right, I really meant the 160 rate. It didn't sound like she's at 185 continuously.

216: Okay, but just to be argumentative, you don't need to maximize everything in order to get a "good enough" workout.

I believe gswift is known for tangential thoughts.

Heh. Your handle reminded me that I don't think I've ever seen a persimmon up here in Utah. Back in L.A. we had a persimmon tree, and so did a couple of my friends. One friend who lived on a busy street sold them in a little stand in the front yard. It was always Asians buying them, mostly Chinese.

No, of course you don't, but the way I've heard that advice is "don't work out too hard if you wan to burn fat," and that's not correct.

Off to bed.

To burn calories.

IYKWIM.

Enjoy your evening wank.

To burn calories.

IYKWIM.

Alternate hands to avoid asymmetrical muscles.

Cute dog on treadmill.

They probably shouldn't clip his leash to it, though.

Yoga can be pretty good for building muscle if you do it fairly seriously and regularly -- my wife used to do a lot and she built some serious looking lean muscle.

That said, it seems that the way a lot of people do it, it doesn't necessarily build general strength in the way that weights or other forms of exercise do. There are women in my kick-boxing class who do a lot of yoga and who are very statically flexible -- they can do the splits, for example -- but can't kick much above waist height because, while they have the static flexibility, they don't have the muscle strength or dynamic flexibility to go with it.

Dynamic flexibility is ignored a lot. Just being able to stretch further while doing a passive stretch isn't the same as having a large range of motion while doing sporting or other activities. It's the dynamic flexibility, as much as the passive kind, that will lead to better performance and reduced incidence of injury.

re: 192

I think that's right and it's better people are honest about their motivation. I'm going regularly to the gym at the moment and it's all about getting rid of the belly* -- my basic fitness was already fine.

* and strength building to rehabilitate a knee injury

Also, I'm finding that giving up smoking (a little over 3 weeks now) is strongly correlated with a desire to eat sugary snacks and chocolate ... grrr.

Congrats, Matt! I'm working on "cutting back," myself. Down to 3 packs/2 weeks at the moment....

re: 240

Good luck with the cutting down.

Luckily I was never someone who smoked a lot of cigarettes and found it OK to regularly go without smoking for a day or two, but the impossible bit was stopping altogether and not smoking when in the pub, which is the one place where smoking is really pleasurable. So far, so good.

Funnily enough, not smoking was partly triggered by being in Scotland for New Year where there's a ban on smoking in the workplace -- including all bars, clubs and restaurants. So, for all my civil libertarian concerns, coercive government legislation does seem to help as a public health measure.

In general, I agree that diets are a no-no. But that is generally because most diets are commercially-induced deviations from normal behaviour.

The "No S Diet" - www.nosdiet.com is a nice mnemonic way to bring yourself back to alimentary reality. And free.

200 (and others) if you are looking for Ultimate in your area, start here and/or here

Sometimes I'm at 185 fairly continuously, actually. I've gotten up to 196 on the elliptical, but I think I was pissed off that day.

And--sorry, this is just a conversation I wind up having all the time, so I can't resist trying to drive this home--I don't know what yoga is "supposed to be," or what is the authentic yoga, so I won't address that, but if you take the SS and warrior sequence poses over and over again at a brisk pace for 30 minutes, while yoga may not be designed to be a cardiovascular activity, it just is as a side effect. I'm a little skeptical of the "not supposed to be" claim anyway (I take it back, I will address that); the entire vinyasa concept (as well as the ashtanga one) calls for moving fluidly from one pose to the other; if you do that quickly, you will get cardiovascular exercise. Many yoga teachers seem to be referencing some component of their yoga instruction that refers to building "heat in the body" during these sequences; that's one important goal of them. They talk about yogic ways of breathing that are designed to retain heat; that might be unscientific nonsense or it may be just right for all I know, but either way it seems like the idea that there will be a portion of practice devoted to achieving an elevated heart rate is built into the philosophy of vinyasa. It's true that you can't go as crazy as you might in some other situations--you need to retain basic control of your breath, and you can't be working so hard you'll get dizzy with the changes in orientation or imprecise with your body placement, but I'm familiar with what various heart rates feel like from cardio machines, and you can work quite hard while maintaining basic yogic breath and mindfulness. I have come out of standing series seriously sweating, with my heart beating quite hard. It depends on the class.

Also, ttaM may be totally right about various Hatha or Iyengar yoga practictitioners re dynamic flexibility but vinyasa is all about dynamic flexibility--you working on getting quickly from one stretchy pose to another. For that matter, depending both on the type of class and how you individually practice, it's hard to see how yoga wouldn't increase large muscle group strength--although perhaps here there would be some kind of diminishing returns issue; I guess I could imagine being strong enough that the various lunges, push uppy things, etc. wouldn't strengthen you any more, but I'm not there yet.

Basically, there are lots of different ways to practice yoga. I find that people tend to make pronouncements about what yoga is or isn't when it's obvious from what they say that they don't practice like I do, and I'm also kind of bemused by complaints about authenticity and what should or shouldn't happen in a yoga class.

I've done a little ashtanga (just a tiny amount, though, so no claim to particular knowledge) and I'm aware that it's different in practice from Iyengar style hatha yoga.

However, I don't think that even vinyasa or ashtanga are particularly working on the sort of dynamic flexibility I am talking about: smoothly but quickly moving from one posture to another really isn't the same thing as the sort of really high-speed explosive flexibility you'd need either to kick high or do other movements of that speed e.g. in olympic style weightlifting, javelin, baseball pitching, soccer, etc. Unless you're practicing yoga at speeds massively in excess of anything I've ever seen.

Still better than pure passive stretching, of course.

I wish running was not so hard on the knees for bigger people (I'm in the range 85-87 kilos) because I think I'd enjoy it. But I've been advised not to develop the habit. There's still the bike. I'd row (scull) more often, but the hassle of getting down the boathouse and into the water is significant.

Compared with how things were in my 20s I'm fairly fit now, and getting fitter, but does anyone have some tips for moving from lean to, uh, really lean? It'll likely do nothing for my health but I'd like to try it just this once; and the body just starts screaming when it realises that the fat may be about to vanish altogether.

Tia!

I just got a spam that said, "No Chocolates, Fatty."

Okay. I mean, yoga is not explosive so whatever benefits are unique to doing something explosive will not come from yoga.

But another thing! I know I have a bug up my butt about this, but it's happy there; it's playing with all the others. While this may not be true for everyone, I find it much, much easier to attain a yogic sort of mindfulness during and after an asskickingly aerobic standing series than in a gentle hatha type class. When I was a member of the Y all the yoga was too slow-paced for me, and I complained once to Clementine that I'd gone into yoga upset, I was upset all during it, and I came out upset, and if that's happening, you're not getting what you need to out of yoga. I don't think an interest in getting vigorous cardiovascular exercise and being mindful and focused in yoga class are at cross purposes; for me one supports the other.

Hi, Rob!

I wish running was not so hard on the knees for bigger people

What are people relying on as the basis of the idea that bigger people shouldn't run? My family may be freaks (okay, we are), but my 6'2" father who hasn't seen 190 from underneath since Kennedy was President has run off and on all his life, more on than off. At 68, he's not running any more because of sciatica, but his knees are still fine. And I can think of some other big heavy men who don't seem to get knee problems from running.

Maybe it is a general rule that running is a bad idea for big men, and the counterexamples I know are out at one end of the bell curve, but people seem to be stating as if it were an obvious truth that anyone near or over 200lbs shouldn't even think about running. This seems overcautious to me.

248: was it selling anything, or just spreading general hostility?

I think the most important thing for cardiovascular fitness is exercising regularly. The best shape I've ever been in (when I was 22-23) was when I was biking to work every day and had a 20-25 minute commute at a brisk pace).

[around that same time I played in a rec soccer league one summer and, in the middle of the season our team was bumped up to the higher division and I have never run that much in my life before or since].

At the same time, I don't think it has to be every day. My current goal for getting back into better shape is an hour of full court basketball twice a week and assorted bike commuting.

On that note, I was looking to get a second bike recently and, to my eye, it looks like bikes are selling on e-bay for about 30% less than they do in nice weather. So if anyone is thinking about taking up biking, no is a good time to be looking at bikes (if you know enough about bikes to pick out a used bike that will work for you).

I think it was selling stock tips; I just moved it to junk-mail.

What are people relying on as the basis of the idea that bigger people shouldn't run?

I'd heard this, but always in the context if you're overweight, running could be hard on your joints. I'm not sure whether if you're just all-over bigger and heavier (and not, say, just carrying an extra 30 pounds), whether that would apply, but I suppose it's possible.

I guess -- that just seems to, within my memory, have moved from "If you're heavy, watch out for your knees starting to bother you if you run. If they do, better you should do something lower impact," to "Anyone big and heavy would be an idiot to start jogging, over 170 lbs, your knees just can't take it." I think the pendulum's swung to overcautiousness.

Here's an article on yoga as generalized fitness regimen.

From the article:

In one of the first studies done in the United States that examines the relationship between yoga and fitness, researchers at the University of California at Davis recently tested the muscular strength and endurance, flexibility, cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and lung function of 10 college students before and after eight weeks of yoga training. Each week, the students attended four sessions that included 10 minutes of pranayama, 15 minutes of warm-up exercises, 50 minutes of asanas, and 10 minutes of meditation.

After eight weeks, the students' muscular strength had increased by as much as 31 percent, muscular endurance by 57 percent, flexibility by as much as 188 percent, and VO2max by 7 percent--a very respectable increase, given the brevity of the experiment. Study coauthor Ezra A. Amsterdam, M.D., suspects that VO2max might have increased more had the study lasted longer than eight weeks. In fact, the ACSM recommends that exercise research last a minimum of 15 to 20 weeks, because it usually takes that long to see VO2max improvements.

"It was very surprising that we saw these changes in VO2max in such a short time," says Amsterdam, professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and director of the coronary care unit at the U. C. Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

A related study done at Ball State University offers further evidence for yoga's fitness benefits. This research looked at how 15 weeks of twice-weekly yoga classes affected the lung capacity of 287 college students. All of the students involved, including athletes, asthmatics, and smokers, significantly improved lung capacity by the end of the semester.

"The athletes were the ones who were the most surprised, because they thought their athletic training in swimming or football or basketball had already boosted their lung capacity to the maximum," says study author Dee Ann Birkel, an emeritus professor at Ball State's School of Physical Education.

re: 257

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying yoga isn't a damn fine thing to do. No need to be so defensive! [he said, passive aggressively]

My wife was in fantastic physical shape when she was doing a lot of yoga.

Just that there's certain things it doesn't do for you and one of the things it doesn't do happens to be one of things that's important for me. Ditto for just about any other sport or form of exercise I can think of.

So, for example, kickboxing [which is the sport I've got the most immediate experience of] is great for flexibility, certain kinds of lower body strength and for unwinding and getting rid of stress/agression but it's crappy -- relative to lots of other things -- for cardiovascular fitness and upper body strength and can put a fair bit of stress on the knees and lower back.

Yoga is great, and it's not surprising that it would boost lung capacity, what with all the breathing exercises, but I'm not convinced that it's a good way to lose weight, if it's the main exercise someone is doing.

257: damn, maybe I should have signed up for a yoga class instead. Sigh. I could use me some mindfulness, that's for sure.

Study coauthor Ezra A. Amsterdam, M.D.

Dr. Ezra Amsterdam? Sweet name.

Interesting read. Small sample sizes though. It would be an interesting comparison to take those ten people and give them some other activity for two hours a week, and measure their stats after that.

I don't want to deny that yoga is good for you, or builds strength (because that would just be crazy), or can be aerobically challenging. Just that if you're trying to work out 30-45 minutes a day, and your primary goal is to lose weight (the studies don't mention that), a 75-minute yoga class probably isn't the best choice.

And I may be drawing too heavily on my own experience. Yoga challenges muscular endurance for me (oddly, I think hatha is better than vinyasa for this, for me), and while my heart will sometimes pound, I have a very hard time getting my heart rate up above 140 in any sort of aerobic activity. Any pause and my heart just slows back down. (I have no idea why, but it used to get me in trouble in gym class when we had to take our heart rates.)

Arg. 262 before all of that. Didn't mean to dogpile.

The ashtanga class I took was a pretty intense workout.

Shut up, smoker.

I stopped on December 30.

Actually the morning of the 31st.

Congrats, apo.

My only two downward dogs in this fight are these:

1) the sun salutations and warrior poses of fast paced flowing classes are cardiovascular, aerobic, and weight bearing, so those sections of the class should contribute to weight loss. It's not as intense a cardiovascular workout as running etc., of course, so you'll burn fewer calories and lose less weight, and you also spend a lot of time doing other stuff that does not help with weight loss. But it should contribute to the process, if aerobic weight bearing exercise is what's required.

2) Having an interest in getting a certain kind of exercise from yoga, including some cardiovascular exercise, is not inauthentic, not "not what yoga is supposed to be", and not in conflict with any sort of mindfulness goal of yoga.

Apo, as I recall you smoked a-- oh, never mind, my phallus doesn't count.

Ultralights don't count, Labs.

Well, if you're bigger you should (hopefully) get bones to match, especially if you exercise, but I'm not so sure about the joints. There's no way of finding out in advance whether or not you have the genes for good joint health / recovery and I'd really hate to have impaired walking mobility in later life.

Maybe just the odd run now and again, though.

Fontana Lights

You've come a long way, baby.

273 "way" s/b "time"?

re: 272

Running kills me, shins and knees; more my shins than my knees, though, and I'm fairly sure that's partly weight related. If I was dead skinny, I'd find it easier.

Any pause and my heart just slows back down

Last I heard, a fast recovery after exercise is a good thing, an indicator that your CV+Pulmonary systems is handling the stress well. The same is true if your HR tends to plateau at a higher rate as exercise is increased from one level to a greater one.

275, meet 161.

I don't know. All I know is that if we stopped and took our six-second pulse, I'd be hovering around 110 bpm. And then I'd have to run a lap because I wasn't working hard enough. Stupid pulse.

272: Really, try the walking up-hill thing. There's no pounding on the joints but gravity still sucks. It seems to do good things for the abdominal and back muscles too.

re: 277

That doesn't work for me. I've tried it. I went through shin splints really badly in my early twenties when I ran a lot, and again a few years back.

Strengthening those muscles is widely recommended as a cure for shin splints (along with calf stretches) but it clearly doesn't work for everyone. Perhaps it'd work for me combined with a 40lb weight loss ...

Quitting smoking is an excellent way to put new life into one's exercise regime. I, also, have not had a cigarette since the morning of Dec. 31st. I'm pretty sure the last cig I smoked was one I bummed off Chopper.

Of course, when you're having as much sex as I am, you don't really need to bother with the gym.

Maybe it is a general rule that running is a bad idea for big men, and the counterexamples I know are out at one end of the bell curve, but people seem to be stating as if it were an obvious truth that anyone near or over 200lbs shouldn't even think about running. This seems overcautious to me.i>

When you are a truly huge land mammal like me, your joints can be a concern if you are thinking about lots of running. However, in general, 200 lbs does not seem like a weight to worry about. Obviously YMMV, but I'm only 5'11" and at 200 pounds (and a bit more) I was fit, was running 30 plus miles a week, and did several marathons. You should start slowly, but it hardly seems like something to worry about.

Quitting smoking is an excellent way to put new life into one's exercise regime.

Hasn't done diddly for mine. Of course, I didn't have one to begin with, so maybe that's the problem.

I hate all you fucking people who quit smoking. Because you were all "come out and smoke with me" at the goddamn meetup, my smoking *ramped up* afterwards. Fuckers.

Lift those toes higher, ttaM! I want to see you sweat! You can do this!

re: 285

I even experimented with using resistance bands and small weights to make it harder [years ago, when I had really bad shin splints the first time] ...

246: really lean? Dead simple - Atkins. Not "low carb", but will work.

Mmm. Bodybuilder guys I've talked to talk about living off tuna to get cut. This is not healthy, but I think if you're trying to get from 12% to 5% bodyfat, or whatever, some sort of all-protein diet is traditional. But why would you want to do that?

I like Yoga a lot, and I think that if you practice Ashtanga seriously, you do get something like aerobic benefits. Doing the full primary series takes at least 2 hours/day.

I have heard that it's not strictly speaking a cardio workout, because your heart rate doesn't actually go up, when you do it properly. (My heart rate did, but I was never that advanced.) The uinjayi breathing is supposed to expand your lung capacity without raising your heart rate.

I had a cheaper yoga mat for a while, but when I lost it, I repalced it with an amazing black mat, and, now, I don't practice regularly. It's also the case that the DVD player on my computer died, so I couldn't use my awesome short forms DVD. There was also a period where I was so anxious that I couldn't work out. I know that sounds strange, because that stuff is supposed to help with anxiety and focus, but it requires a certain level of concentration and focus to get started.

44 et al.: with the exception of yoga, I find it much harder to work out at home than in a gym. I once applied for a job at MGH, and one of the things that disappointed me about not getting the job is that they have a great gym with a pool on site which only charges $30 or $40/month. I still think that one of the great benefits to working at HBS is their gym.

I find that working, cooking and exercising take up more time than I seem to have.

I never really like tehse exercies threads, because I'm not good at reading books and then applying them to physical activity. I need a real person to show me how to do things.

I too would like to have a workout buddy/ trainer.

Ah, shit, I forgot to html-entitize my post. Less than 10 grams carbs, 2/3 of calories from fat and 1/3 from protein, and do interval training for 20 minutes in the morning before you eat breakfast.

Is it "healthy"? Enh, probably not. But who cares. As to why you would want to do this... lots of reasons. To see if you can? Because it'd be cool? To win a bet?

288: Vanity. Bloody minded-ness.

The diet in 290 will destroy your kidneys in a hurry. If you're cool with that, go ahead.

Stick with the bloodymindedness. If you're going from fit with reasonably low bodyfat to seriously cut, odds are significant that you're better looking with the extra fat.

But bloodymindedness is an excellent reason to do most things -- why would I get intp arguments about Kerry's war record if I didn't approve of it?

Wait, maybe not, I misread. Still doesn't sound healthy though. Also, where are you going to get 2.3 of your calories from fat, with almost no carbs and only 1/3 protein? Are you just drinking olive oil?

Won't destroy your kidneys, although it will make your urine smell funny, and is apparently a very bad idea if you are diabetic. 2/3 from fat and 1/3 from protein is actually pretty easy to do. Bacon, eggs, cheese, sausage, salad (greens, no croutons, non-low-fat dressing), macadamia nuts, fish... whatever.

Urine will smell funny, and taking craps will be a new and interesting experience. Expect to spend about as much total time on the toilet as you do now, but spread amongst 1/3rd as many events.

Salad has carbs. It's pretty much all carbs. So do nuts. And I'm pretty sure eating nothing but meat and cheese is going to give you too much protein and not enough fat for your 1/3-2/3 parameters.

A few years ago I made a resolution to do three things:

1. No soft drinks ever - drink water or no-corn-sweeteners juice.
2. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. I do about 12 flights a day as part of my normal workday.
3. Work out about 15 minutes, twice a week. (!)

I also always split an entree with my wife when dining out. God, portions are huge.

That's all it takes, and I'm in the best shape of my life at 41.

Macadamia nuts are almost 100% fat. The nutritional content of lettuce is effectively zero - the dietary fiber goes straight through you - so salads are all what you put on them. If this is cheese, chicken, and dressing without a lot of sugar added to it, you'll have effectively no carbs. And again, "zero" is somewhat overstating it; less than ten grams a day is good enough.

296: If you ask me, I'd rather be fat than have hemorrhoids.

Mmm. Metamucil.

"I too would like to have a workout buddy/ trainer."

I think it's probably useful to work with a trainer for a bit when you are starting out, just to get a sense of what a good workout is. It's far too easy to end up just pushing weight around if you don't really understand how the body works.

Here's another thought -- what about martial arts? I was at my most fit evar the year I was enrolled in a Tae Kwon Do school; however there is a large overlap between that year and the time when I was riding my bicycle long distances regularly, so it's hard to give full credit for my shape back then to the Tae Kwon Do. I was definitely more limber then than I've been before or since, and I don't see that coming much from the bike riding, so. My experience of Tae Kwon Do was a bit like I hear from people their yoga experience being; I never achieved quite the sought-after experience from yoga. There was a fair amount of heavy-bag-punching in Tae Kwon Do (or maybe it was mostly kicking -- my memory of it is fading a bit.) I've never done any punching-bag work in any other context. Maybe I will sign up for a class again.

I vote for manual labor. The fittest I ever was was the summer I worked on a ranch.

Yeah well see, the summer I worked on a farm I was not in very good shape. But the farm was in Bavaria and there was an extremely high availability of wursts and cheeses and beer. Which three in combination kept me from growing thin despite the hard labor.

Mmmm, wurst...

My current approach of running during the week, kayaking on the weekends, and a little manual labor here and there would work fine if I could manage to be consistent about the exercise and stay away from all the junk food that people bring to the office.

I've got mixed feelings re: taekwondo. I took tkd for several years in Los Angeles, and deliberately chose an old-fashioned dojang (meditation, honorifics, and gritting your teeth through the pain) because I didn't think I could take seriously a newfangled place that focused on fitness and self-esteem and empowerment. I was perhaps stronger than I've ever been in my life, but I don't think I was meant to exercise so hard -- I'd regularly be unable to eat dinner after class because I was so nauseated with exhaustion. Also, taekwondo is hard on the joints. Eventually I got tired of the aching knees and elbows, and of regularly getting my ass kicked by eighteen year old boys (only green belts! they weren't supposed to be able to beat me), and I quit. I'm still about the same size and weight I was when I did tkd, but I'm softer -- the exercise I get out of DDR and roller skating isn't quite the same, I guess. And I still feel a distinct pang of guilt every time I drive past the my old studio and see the white uniforms lined up inside -- I picture my old grandmaster punching me in the stomach and mocking how soft I've gotten.

I'm pretty happy with PK's fitness/self-esteem/empowerment TKD studio, myself.

Of course, but you're trying to raise him to be soft.

I like this post a lot, and the comments. I realised recently that for the last few years I have spent the months from mid January to May or thereabouts slowly getting fitter and shifting the winter flab, the summer coasting but staying reasonably fit and the autumn/winter getting fatter from not paying attention and letting go of good habits. Last year the third phase started sooner and was way worse partly because of the serious illness of a family member. That's still eating a lot of my time and energy so I probably won't do as well this year.

It definitely helps me to have a positive fitness goal rather than a weight loss goal. I can always manage to slowly get stronger and fitter by putting in the effort but my dietary willpower sucks and I start to hate myself. Also, whoever said running doesn't increase your appetite is ON CRACK. I took it up in last year's fitness phase and did a 10k at the end of May and during the training my appetite went from its usual high levels to absolutely ginormous. Sadly I also banjaxed my feet, I couldn't do any exercise for about a month and nothing much apart from cycling for two further months. (What I thought was just the weird shape of my feet were actually bunions and the pain has only now fully gone away.)

LB, on your time/space issues - do you already walk to work? If not, can you fit in walking all or part of the way? The big advantage of your commute being your main exercise is that by the time you get home you've already got it done, then you can add in a bit of something else much less often (gym, yoga, swimming, weekend sessions on the rower) to get the other muscles in good shape. Audiobooks from the library are nice during your walk if you're not a big music person, but once it's a habit rather than a chore it be it can also be a good time to think.

310: Au contraire. I'm trying to raise him to be strong enough not to care when people call him names.

311: Walking just not enough, sadly. If only it were. It still helps, of course.

OK, the protein diet comments have almost completely put me off the idea for now, but thanks anyway. Also, it's possible that I don't really know what a carbohydrate is: I've been known to argue that rice is a vegetable, for instance.

So, after tonight's very satisfying gym beat up - intense enough to produce a whiff of ammonia - my supper was this: herring, rye bread, fromage frais, nuts, fruit and a double Scotch (neat). I think this means carbohydrates were consumed.

"Carbohydrates" in nutritional terms means carbohydrates you can actually digest and turn into calories/fat. Lettuce and Spinach are made up mostly of cellulose which is in fact a carbohydrate, but we cannot digest it so it is considered "Fiber" (or "Roughage" if you are a livestock animal) in nutritional terms.

Carbs: simple sugars. Anything that dissolves wholly or partly in your mouth contains carbs.

Protein: stuff that comes from animals. Also, beans.

Fruit & veg: stuff that you can peel, or pick off a plant and eat immediately.

Fat: anything that's creamy and/or coats your tongue. Favor the ones that are liquid at room temperature over the ones that aren't.

One of the reasons it drives me nuts when people get into the science of fitness and eating is that it really isn't all that complicated.

my supper was this: herring, rye bread, fromage frais, nuts, fruit and a double Scotch (neat).

Sounds delicious, and reasonably healthy.

It's also worth noting that sugars = energy; people think of them as being bad for you, but that's only the case when the energy:nutrition ratio is overbalanced on the energy end.

Favor the ones that are liquid at room temperature over the ones that aren't.

Does this mean that clarified butter is actually good for me? More seriously, I don't understand this recommendation and have never heard it before. What's that all about?

317- sure, the question is when the overbalancing occurs. Our digestive systems, along with the rest of our bodies, evolved in a time in earth history when there was little simple sugar around to be had. Fruits (in season), or raw honeycomb. That's pretty much it. People now have bread and pasta pretty much every day, if not every meal (not to mention soft drinks and cakes and candy bars and waffles).

2) Having an interest in getting a certain kind of exercise from yoga, including some cardiovascular exercise, is not inauthentic, not "not what yoga is supposed to be", and not in conflict with any sort of mindfulness goal of yoga.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting way back upthread that cardiovascular improvement is inconsistent with yoga practice (of whatever school), and certainly not that it's in conflict with mindfulness.

What drove my perhaps slightly pissy-sounding comment was the memory of friends who've wanted their yoga experience to be something like doing aerobics. I still consider that ridiculous. These seem to be the same sort of yoga classes in which the instructor says: Now bend over and touch your toes. Stretch! Stretch!

What??? NO nononono! Bend over how, for heaven's sake? Carefully, more instruction, please! Etc.

My objection was to the notion that yoga *should* be a workout. (Someone seemed to have suggested that.) And yes, there are indeed inauthentic yoga classes: the ones you flee after a single session, in the knowledge that this instructor simply doesn't get it.

Mmm. Waffles.

Liquid at room temp will be mono- or poly-unsatursated. Solid at room temp will be saturated. I'd say both are good -- don't just eat the liquid ones, get plenty of both.

SOlid at room temp coudl also be hydrogenated, which is extra bad for you, I've been led to believe.

hydrogenated commonly called "trans fats"

318: probably has to do with the saturatedness of the fat, or lack thereof.

322/323: In this context, hydrogenation == saturation.

Right. Artificially hydrogenated fats usually have trans fats as an impurity, but it's not necessary that they do.

318: Actually, yes; clarified butter is healthier than unclarified. And it's b/c of the saturated v. unsaturated fat thing; my understanding is that, as a general rule of thumb, unsaturated fats have less cholesterol.

322: I said "favor." I'm hippie enough to say that, except for allergies, all natural foods are good for people at some level, which is why diets are stupid. Hydrogenated fats, on the other hand, are not natural--which is why butter is not only much better-tasting in pie crusts than crisco, but also healthier.

66% of your calories from fat? Is this meant to be a long-term diet, this road to constipation?

I am pretty much against diets in all forms at all times under all circumstances, but even taking that into account... damn.

Actually, yes; clarified butter is healthier than unclarified.

Interesting! I will stock back up on ghee, then.

One of the reasons it drives me nuts when people get into the science of fitness and eating is that it really isn't all that complicated.

But it is fairly complicated, a lot of people are politically invested in certain nutritional theories (wanting to sell the crops they grow, wanting to sell the foods they make, having political objections to certain means of food production), and the public health establishment will frequently simplify to increase understandability without saying that they are doing so.

308: I got into that for about three years when the kids were interested. That's when I started carrying the .45 regularly 'cause there's no way I could fight off anything larger than a kitten after a class with the mad Korean. Given three days a week of classes, there were no days without pain.

Actually, wait. I felt guilty about offering health advice on teh internets and asked my boyfriend as well as looking it up. Clarified butter lasts longer, but it's a purer form of fat, since you get rid of the milk solids. It does have more antioxidants. I think I was remembering "healthy" for "lasts longer." Sorry.

329: No, it's not really a long term diet. It's an amazing way to shed body fat, and also apparently is very good at controlling epilepsy. It also gives impaired brain function for the first couple of weeks on it, drastically reduces your alcohol tolerance, and limits your aerobic capacity.

But if you want to lose bodyfat while retaining muscle, it works like a charm.

I think I was remembering "healthy" for "lasts longer."

twinkies

331: The discourse is complicated, but the actual issue of nutrition really isn't. Whole foods are better than processed, don't overload on animal products. Easy.

336 should link to the Michael Pollan essay in this week's NYTimes Magazine. So should 337, but I have to run.

336: all well and good to the extent that the question is "what kind of foods are generally good for me." Once the questions go beyond that, it gets complicated. One can deal with this by denying the relevance of further questions ("How can I get really lean?" "You shouldn't want to."), but that's not satisfying.

Or, more plausibly, denying the completeness of the science. Am I supposed to eat eggs or avoid them? Avocados? Fish? Is it okay if I eat low-fat cheese and low-fat cookies, or should I skip them?

These are things that have all gone from the good column to the bad column or vice versa within the past five years.

338: I don't care what people who have weird diet/body issues do; I'm talking about keeping people from developing weird /diet body issues in the first place.

Nah. Eggs, avocados, and fish are all real food. Low-fat cheese and low-fat cookies generally aren't, unless you're talking about neufchatel vs. cream cheese or those crispy wafer things vs. chocolate chip peanut butter cookies. Which is again fairly easily resolved by thinking in terms of moderation and relative amounts of saturated fat.

2nd par of 340 to 339, obvs.

Also, taekwondo is hard on the joints. Eventually I got tired of the aching knees and elbows, and of regularly getting my ass kicked by eighteen year old boys (only green belts! they weren't supposed to be able to beat me), and I quit.

Hard styles like taekwon and shotokan can be a real pain this way. Try a softer style like hapkido. Much more friendly to the body for the long term practitioner.

This essay?

It was an okay article. I feel like it didn't spend enough time on the degree to which people like the foods that are too rich - because we expect them to be scarce - but the general point about "nutritionism" seemed sound. I'd be okay with only eating things that my great-grandparents (or, more broadly, anyone living at that time) recognized as food. Individually, though, it's a difficult prescription in our culture; swimming upstream is hard work. I'm also unclear of the status of grains (whole or refined) in his "leaves, not seeds" plan.

I think that was an implicit anti-grain swipe. It really isn't hard to stay away from anything your great-grandmother would have recognized as food -- I eat badly, in many ways, but I do this mostly.

that should, of course, be 'wouldn't'.

Hydrogenated fats, on the other hand, are not natural--which is why butter is not only much better-tasting in pie crusts than crisco, but also healthier.

You hippie, it's not because it's "not natural", it's because they're using a fat not exactly known for taste. Cottonseed oil, IIRC. Shockingly, cottonseed oil not as tasty as butter.

I suppose we will have to commission someone to make some partially hydrogenated extra-virgin olive oil to see if it is still delicious when it has been made deadly.

Find your maximum heart rate with the formula 220 - (Age x 0.85).

Shouldn't that be (220 - age) x .85?

I don't think a 40-year old has a maximum heart rate of 186.

I don't think a 40-year old has a maximum heart rate of 186.

Why not? That sounds about right, actually. That's not the rate you're working out at, but the fastest your heart can beat. I did a stress test for my heart a few years ago and my max heart rate was 215.

346: Read again. "which is why . . . healthier." The bit about taste was an aside.

For dinner tonight I am making bbq pork, apples (fried in butter, thank you) with cinnamon and nutmeg, and macaroni & cheese (again, butter) made with this crazy-ass cheddar/mango/lime/peppers cheese I picked up at TJ's the other day.

I predict fat, fat bellies.

Bitch, can you document 328? The fat in clarified butter is exactly the same as butter-fat; what has been removed is water and detergent solids. In my understanding both are exactly the same degree of healthy, though I could certainly be mistaken; but I'm pretty sure there is no difference in degree of saturation. Butter is solid at room temp not because it is more saturated than ghee but because the fat molecules are bound up with the milk solids and water.

Oh, just got to 333. Nemmine.

I haven't read all the comments yet, but I see a lot of hating on running. Haven't I recommended ChiRunning here before? Despite the really stupid name, the guy manages to give some good advice. His argument is that with the right form, you don't get injuries. He's had a lot of success with the running form he advocates; I think there's a decent chance he's on to something.

I can explain some of the basics. Most people do power running - vertical column, feet pushing off the floor, and using your calves to help propel. This apparantly is all wrong. It's not how the great runners run.

Instead, keep your back straight and tilt forward a little, so that you're falling. The degree of your tilt depends on your feed. Second, don't push off. Instead, pick up your feet, using your hips and quads. You should never employ your calves; you're limp from below the knee. Also, arm swing is important, and they should be swinging backwards.

I do run this way. It is much lower impact, and when I first started doing it, I kinda felt like I was cheating myself because the running was much easier. Y'alls descriptions of treadmill running...easier than power running, your feet carried behind you...sounds more like running with good form.

Ghee is solid at room temp too, though.

Much softer than butter though.

"288

Mmm. Bodybuilder guys I've talked to talk about living off tuna to get cut. This is not healthy, but I think if you're trying to get from 12% to 5% bodyfat, or whatever, some sort of all-protein diet is traditional. But why would you want to do that?"

Well, they often eat giant piles of green leaves too, since thats about all you can eat w/o taking in calories.

as far as the super low carb diets, they don't help you lose weight better or maintain muscle better, but for some people you end up a lot less hungry, so they can be useful. You lose some strength tho.

Memory tells me the equation in 348 is right. I'm sure google could confirm but I'm lazy.

353 sounds very much like the Pose running method, which not being a serious runner I've never really tried, but about which I've heard some very positive things.

I just made a soup recipe that called for sauteeing two leeks in 1/2 C of butter. Damn, that was tasty.

What about Shovel Glove? http://www.shovelglove.com/

Shovel Glove is great. I've seen people do very similar routines with a standard barbell and weight plates, by putting the plates only on one side.

It's things like that that make me think I'd be in better shape if I lived in a big enough domicile to exercise in a room where I could be unobserved. That actually looks like fun, but I don't think I could take the howls of merriment it would elicit.

353 -- on the treadmill this morning I tried something like that method -- though "tried" should be taken as "attempted" rather than "tested" -- my proprioception is weak enough that I'm not really very sure I was actually doing what I was trying to do. I did run a little further than I normally do which is encouraging. (I also fell off the treadmill; after I had been running fast at 7 mph for a while I reduced the speed to 5 mph, but I over-estimated how much I should slow down my pace. Then I tried to climb back on while the thing was moving, and of course fell down again.)

112 -- I tried that out this morning too, but was tired out enough from my running that I was not able to get into a groove with it. Tomorrow I will do that first, before the running.

You know, don't try to get into a groove too fast. It's an awkward motion. Keep it mindful and conscious, legs-back-arms, legs-back-arms, for awhile before you try to get smooth.

Hey, you know what? If you go to the gym and start lifting again after about six months of mostly doing yoga, ballet, and cardio? You'll have lost most of your strength gains!

Bahhh. Calasmash.

I've been told that it's much easier to get strength back than it was to build it up the first time -- like, way easier. So give yourself a month or so before you get cranky.

re: 365

I started doing strength training recently after several years of doing no specific weight training. I've noticed that the weights I am moving are pathetic compared to what I could lift over 10 years ago [which weren't particularly impressive even then] which is pretty demoralising but I've also noticed immediate visible differences after a few weeks, which is good.

Yeah, I know. It's just that I hadn't realized, somehow, that it had really been since September that I'd been lifting regularly, and it was sort of a shock that it had been that long.

135- now come on, that's just silly LB. It's "physically different" because if you stop moving on the treadmill, it's going to throw you off the back. The same thing doesn't happen on the train. And this same force that will throw you off the back of the treadmill will, if you plant one foot in front of you and raise the other one, propel the first foot behind you, without your doing much of anything. Drop second foot, raise first foot, repeat. Again, try this on a moving train and you'd be awkwardly marching in place.

Put another way, you don't really need to engage your glutes much at all to run on a treadmill. To a much greater extent, you do running outside.

163- because waving your legs is still exercise, no doubt about it. No one said otherwise. It's just not the same exercise as running around a track.

Has anyone mentioned divorce as a weight loss method?

I realize that this method requires the painful first step of getting married, but it really works well.

369- I can vouch for having a child as a weight loss methos, though I'll be damned if I can figure out how it works. I've lost 27 pounds in the six months since my kid's been born. (And I'm a thin guy, so those were 27 pounds I definitely did not want to lose. I'm starting to look downright emaciated.) I eat and eat and eat and the weight just keeps dropping off. It's very frustrating and I'm dead serious when I say I can't figure it out. At first I blamed it on the fact that my eating and sleeping became pretty irregular after he was born, but all that more or less normalized a few months ago, and I'm still dropping pounds. The only thing I can think of now is that I haven't really had time to exercise regularly, and maybe that's the problem? Or possibly I've picked up a tapeworm or something.

368: You're still wrong -- the train is exactly the same as the treadmill (barring wind resistance). You're running normally with respect to a moving frame of reference. (Oh, wind resistance, a bouncier, perfectly consistent, and obstacle free surface, and the psychological effect of not being able to slow down without falling off the back of the treadmill probably all make it easier to run at a consistent speed on a treadmill, but that's not what you're talking about.)

I'm not sure if I can describe this next thought experiment clearly enough to get my point across without drawing little pictures on napkins, but let me try.

You've agreed that running down the corridor of a moving train is the same thing as running outside, even if your speed is the same as the train's so you aren't moving over the ground. So far, so good.

Now, take the same train, and remove the floor in the corridor. The seats are still there and there's a floor under them, but in the corridor you'd just fall straight down onto the tracks. (Also, no axels. The roof of the train is holding the sides together, and the wheels are attached to the sides of the train. It's not structurally sound, but it doesn't have to last long, just a couple more paragraphs.) And when you remove the floor in the corridor, make the edges jagged, like gear teeth.

Now, get yourself a treadmill. It doesn't need to have a motor -- the train is going to drive it. The edges of the belt (that is, the rubber running surface) are also shaped into gear teeth, and the belt is exactly as wide as the width of missing floor in the train corridor. While the train is in the station, drop the treadmill onto the tracks, so that the teeth on the side of the belt engage with the teeth in the sides of the train's floor. Step back and take a look at it -- you now have a train with no floor in the corridor, except for one spot where the treadmill forms a floor.

Now start the train. The motion of the train is going to drive the belt of the treadmill around, while the body of the treadmill remains motionless standing inbetween the tracks at the station. But from the point of view of someone sitting in one of the seats on the train, the belt forms a patch of floor, the surface of which is motionless with respect to the train (remember, the gear teeth are engaged) but the location of which is moving toward the rear of the train at the same speed at which the train is moving forward over the ground. If someone in a seat puts a cup of coffee down on the treadmill while it's next to them, the cup doesn't move forward or backward with respect to the seat for as long as the treadmill remains under it -- it's motionless with respect to the seat in the same way the floor would have been if the floor were there. In a couple of seconds the coffee falls to the tracks as the treadmill moves out from under it, but while the treadmill is still next to that seat, its surface is physically indistinguishable from an ordinary floor of the train. [Edit: If you're having trouble with this bit, picture the treadmill as being really long, so it takes a while for any given seat to move past the whole length of it.]

Now, get on the treadmill and start running. From the perspective of someone in a seat, you're running toward the back of the train at the same speed the train is moving forward over the ground. The surface you're running on is motionless with respect to the seats, and your location with respect to the seats is changing. This is no different from the situation we've already agreed is real running, right? But from the perspective of someone standing in the train station, you're running on a moving treadmill, and your location with respect to the station is unchanging -- it's just as if you were in the gym. And taking the train away from around you doesn't change the physics of the situation at all.

(That was wordy, but I like high-school physics. And I'm certainly not arguing that running on a treadmill isn't distinguishable in many ways from running outside, just that the basic physics are the same.)

Damn that was long. And perhaps needlesesly complex: I think the idea of an infinitely long treadmill conveys the same point much more cleanly. If you could just stop, and stand there, and lay down and take a nap, and get up and start running, and then turn around and walk the other way a bit, and then run some more: how could the running part be any different than running on "solid ground"? (And, not incidentally, the rotating earth itself serves as a pretty good approximation of an infinitely long treadmill.) So, in the end, you've convinced me and I concede.

But that leaves me even more confused, in a way: why does it feel like such a difference in effort to me? I find it hard to believe it's just wind, since I don't normally run into heavy winds. I really do feel like I tend to run with significantly poorer form on a treadmill - again, not engaging the glutes. I wonder if this is ultimately psychological? Not that the difference is in my head, which you'd be hard-pressed to convince upon me, but that something about the environment of being on a moving treadmill in a gym makes me tend to run with worse form than running outdoors? Or even around a track indoors? That would be odd, but I've got no better explanation.

I was thinking about it, and I don't know if it encourages worse form rather than better form. There's a sort of bouncy loping gait that I find easy to get into on a treadmill, and that I think is what people talk about when they talk about 'letting the treadmill move underneath you'. I can do the same thing running on the ground, but it's hard to talk myself into it -- it feels natural on the treadmill, unnatural outside.

I'm guessing that that sort of bouncy lope is more efficient than the grim plodding jog I end up with running on ground, and there's something about the psychology of the treadmill that makes it easier to do it, so running at any given speed on the treadmill feels easier.

(Yeah, the thought experiment was a mess. I'm impressed that it was comprehensible at all, though -- I was expecting the reaction to be more along the lines of "Wait, where's the treadmill? Gears? What?")

I'll confess it took me a few readings to get a solid handle on it.

The only thing I can think of now is that I haven't really had time to exercise regularly, and maybe that's the problem?

If your normal exercise routine comprises lots of strength-building activities, you're probably shedding some muscle mass. Still, 27 pounds? I wish when I didn't exercise I lost weight.

? Not that the difference is in my head, which you'd be hard-pressed to convince upon me, but that something about the environment of being on a moving treadmill in a gym makes me tend to run with worse form than running outdoors?

I hate treadmills, so I don't have a whole lot of experience with them, but surely part of the difference is the grip between your shoes and the belt, which just doesn't exist on the grass or pavement.

If your feet are slipping at every step when you run outside, you need shoes with better traction. If they aren't, then what do you mean by grip?

Wait, these treadmills are powered? They move regardless of whether you run on them, at a set speed? Wouldn't that be the difference right there, the work you do to propel yourself forward, against the ground, or against the belt of a treadmill that took all its energy from your feet? Then why he feels running on land in his glutes and not on the treadmill is obvious: the horizontal vector of the force expended has been taken out—the glutes pull that specifically—and he's essentially running in place. Now running or walking in place is not without value, but it's not the same.

Or am I completely missing what you're talking about?

377: Were you visualizing a gaggle of viking POWs powering a wheat mill?

Kind of, yeah.

Try it with Brock's thousand-mile long treadmill -- it's a powered treadmill, but it stretches out for a thousand miles behind you. You could run forward, or sit down on it and be carried toward the back of the treadmill, or run to the back and be carried twice as fast. Can't you see that there's nothing different about your motion, you're just running, regardless of the fact that the surface you're running on is in motion relative to the surface of the earth?

And then shorten it up -- a five-foot treadmill isn't a different beast than a thousand mile one, in terms of how you run on it.

I eventually came around to LB's argument, btw. I got into a self-argument about, "Hell, the world is really one big hamster-wheel style treadmill, isn't it."

Incidentally, once when I was little, I was on a playground with child-size hamster wheels, and they were incredibly fun. Way better than a treadmill. If you got up some speed and planted your feet, you could go around in a 360.

Galileo's relativity, man -- the laws of nature are the same in any unaccelerated frame of reference.

Hamster wheel

Despite my now being completely convinced that LB's right, 377 still rings true. I really am confused about what the difference might be. I don't think 373 does it.

Also, my treadmill was infinitely long, not 1,000 miles. As long as there's a theoretical possibilty of falling off the back, I maintain that the physics are wholly incomparable.

Incomparable in theory, I mean. Not in fact.

Also, my treadmill was infinitely long, not 1,000 miles.

Somehow this sentence is really, really funny to me.

383: Well, first, you have to agree that the treadmill produces more efficient form, rather than less -- if the same speed is easier on the treadmill, you're running better, not worse. Second, I think bounciness of surface does a lot -- I feel as though I get a lot of rebound off a treadmill that I don't get off concrete.

(And for physics snideness -- for anyone who's talking about 'force', you have to remember that on the macro scale, the only forces you get are gravity, electromagnetism, and forces transmitted by contact. Other than gravity and electromagnetism, if you aren't touching it, it isn't exerting a force on you. So in the frame of reference of someone on a treadmill, the stationary ground next to it just isn't there -- it's not changing any of the forces in any way.)

Well, I wasn't agreeing with the physics so much as the experiential description.

Why would a treadmil prodice more efficient form? Just by forcing a constant pace? I'm not sure I buy that. (At least for me. May be true for some.)

I don't agree. Unless you're doing work, propelling the conveyor with the balls of your feet, then what you're doing is running in place, albeit with the ankle articulation and stride of full running. And that may be very good exercise, almost certainly is, but it's not the same.

On the long conveyors, you can move relative to the device and do work that way, like running up an escalator—you can of course get extra exercise by scattering the Iowans with a back-handed stroke of your briefcase—will be just the same work as running up stairs, minus the number of steps that move during the time you're on it. But when you're moving at exactly the speed of the belt, as you always will be on the five-footer, you're accomodating to its motion, not running normally on a surface that happens to be moving. As I say, it may be and probably is good exercise, but it's not the same without doing the work.

I'm the wrong person to talk about this, because I don't know jack about proper running form. But somewhere upthread, someone linked to site talking about a more efficient gait which sounded like my 'bouncy lope' -- your effort goes into pushing you up, not forward, and the forward motion is more of a falling forward rather than being pushed forward by your feet.

I can imagine that it's hard to cut loose from pushing yourself forward when you're running on ground, because it seems intuitively necessary to push forward if you want to go forward. On the treadmill, the cues around you are stationary, so the 'push up and fall forward' gait makes more mental sense. If it's a more efficient gait, that would make the treadmill run easier.

389: I give up.

387: to you physics aside ... true about the useage of `force', but that doesn't mean the two situations are physically identical. Think about the momentums involved, and torques. Air friction is also there, but probably a larger psychological effect than physical.

No, it isn't the same as running in place either.

"propelling the conveyor with the balls of your feet"

So, the appropriate comparison:
On a hamster wheel (ie stationary with an axle, not a hamster ball)
1. You getting up to speed, then jogging on a basically frictionless wheel

-and-

2. You on a hamster wheel which is maintained at constant speed by an external motor.

I think these are in fact the same experience, the only difference being the friction-assumption.

394: do your two situations change with the mass of the wheel?

aside the treadmillmechanics, all of this is physically/kinesiologically differnt than running in place because you can't use the same stride.

395 addendum: are we comparing the physics of powered vs unpowered treadmills? or treadmill vs. running on flat ground? Or all three?

We would love to compare all these things, after we go give a quick calculus lecture!

or treadmill vs. running on flat ground?

This, mostly.

389- if the infinitely long treadmill doesn't do it for you, spend a few minutes mentally riding LB's structurally-unsound train, and see if that helps.

I'm a little concerned that people might not have realized that 384/385 was a joke.

400...

I got it -- note that the 'I give up' response was not addressed to 384-85.

And this:

mentally riding LB's structurally-unsound train

sounds mildly obscene -- "I'd like to ride her structurally unsound train, IYKWIM."

375- yes, it's almost certainly muscle mass. I don't really have any fat to lose, and I don't think my balls are shrinking. But 27 pounds is a lot of weight to drop in six months. I'm eating tons of extra food too, apparantly for naught. It's very disconcerting.

I suspect that the first order differences are biomechanical, not mechanical. But I also have to run off to a seminar....

401- drat, I was going for highly obscene.

402: Brock, I can see how that would be disconcerting; however as I understand it this is not wholly unusual. If you have bulked up well past your bodies most natural musculature, you are carrying around a lot of metabolically expensive mass that you don't `need', in some sense. It makes sense to shed it if you aren't using it. Could be something else, of course.

Ok, now I really really have to go.

The really funny thing is that I wouldn't have guessed I even had 27lbs. of spare muscle on me in the first place. I'm not at all a big guy. (Even six months ago.) Most people would call me too thin.

389:"Unless you're doing work, propelling the conveyor with the balls of your feet, then what you're doing is running in place, albeit with the ankle articulation and stride of full running."

instead of running on a treadmill, imagine rowing against the current. I don't think there is any appreciable difference between rowing in place relative to the shore in a current that is going 5 mph and rowing 5 mph in smooth water.

388: Pacing and a much more uniform surface make a huge difference. No rocks to trip over, no low spots, no lines to pick, no turns to make.

Congratulations screwballs, you took it to over 400.

If they aren't, then what do you mean by grip?

My shoes aren't sliding anywhere, but a rubberized belt is stickier than a sidewalk; more of my push forward goes forward instead of into stabilizing the rest of my gait.

Brock, maybe you should go to a doctor, just to get checked out--that's a lot of weight to lose (although the fact that you still have your appetite probably rules out the really bad stuff).

Unless you're doing work, propelling the conveyor with the balls of your feet, then what you're doing is running in place,

No, you're propelling yourself forward at the same speed the t'mill is moving you backwards. All that's happening is the horizontal vectors are canceling. (Neglecting air resistance, gopher holes, carbon monoxide, SUVs making right turns on red, insane dogs, and all the other benefits of running outdoors.)

Seconding 410: it's probably nothing, but 27 pounds is a substantial weight loss even if you're a really big brawny guy.

I probably should. I haven't in a while because I became very dissatisfied with my previous doctor, and wanted to switch. And finding a new one seems like such a chore. But I'm getting to an age where it really makes sense to have someone poke around in my ass every now and again, if nothing else.

They have to root around in your infinite treadmill...

Are treadmills slightly sprung? I can imagine they might be, from the sound they make in the gym.

Even if there's only a bit of bounce, it's going to make a difference.