|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 175 of 332:
| 
Oct 14 20:13 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 176 of 332:
|
Oct 14 20:39 UTC 2003 |
Heh
|
lynne
|
|
response 177 of 332:
|
Oct 14 23:59 UTC 2003 |
Hmm. Often, the elliptical I used at the MIT gym would tell me I was
burning about 600 calories in about 40 min. It was definitely a good
workout, but the bike always was much more effort and told me I'd burned
fewer calories. The calf-muscle explanation sounds good to me. The
elliptical definitely works more of your body.
I think hockey and swimming are known for building up butt size. I don't
swim very often; I can say for sure that hockey works the butt muscles
pretty thoroughly. They're essential for standing your ground against
an opponent who is trying to knock you over, or who you are trying to
knock over. Anyway, while my ass is not small, I think I'd describe it
as solid rather than large. More exercise is not the way to get rid of
that.
I was screwing around with BMI calculators online today, and was annoyed
just a bit to find that I'd crossed the line into the "overweight"
classification. Meanwhile, the body fat calculators told me I'm about
23% fat, which is well within the healthy range. It's really gross to
think about carrying 30+ pounds of fat around, though. Maybe I'll go
exacerbate my butt at hockey practice tomorrow morning.
|
keesan
|
|
response 178 of 332:
|
Oct 15 01:39 UTC 2003 |
You can be 'overweight' by having lots of muscle.
|
scott
|
|
response 179 of 332:
|
Oct 15 02:20 UTC 2003 |
I think I'd like elliptical trainers a lot more if they weren't designed for
people under 6 feet tall. I feel sort of cramped on them, anyway. Now that
winter is coming it'll be time to start hitting the stairclimbers again...
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 180 of 332:
|
Oct 15 03:13 UTC 2003 |
The ideal fat percentage for women is in the 22-25% range, for men its much
less. Makes sense, seeing that women have more fat in their breasts and
overall need more fat on their bodies than men do.
600 calories in 40 minutes on the elliptical is believable if you were going
at a steep incline or really fast. I did 580 calories in 55 minutes this
morning. Some 660 calories in an hour yesterday.
Keesan is right, when you start buiilding muscle, you tend to put on more
weight. Muscle weighs more than fat.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 181 of 332:
|
Oct 15 03:43 UTC 2003 |
BMI is terrible, I'd suppose, for fit people.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 182 of 332:
|
Oct 15 12:21 UTC 2003 |
There's fit, and there's the body-building types with lots of big muscles.
If you're aiming for fit, I'd imagine the BMI is a good indication. If you're
aiming to go the Arnie Scwarzie way, look more at fat percentage.
I've lost enough weight to put me on the borderline of healthy BMI
|
keesan
|
|
response 183 of 332:
|
Oct 15 15:03 UTC 2003 |
Anyone want to calculate my body fat percentage? I am at least 101 pounds
now. Used to be 19%, I think (at 115 or so pounds). I have gained nearly
10 pounds but it must all have gone to muscle as I can't find any fat, but
I also don't see any increase in muscle size (not that they don't work better
now).
|
lynne
|
|
response 184 of 332:
|
Oct 15 18:29 UTC 2003 |
Yup, BMI is pretty damn bad as a measure for healthy weights. One of my
teammates is *extremely* fit--in an athletic but not body-builderly way.
One of the very few women I know with a sixpack. Anyway, her BMI puts
her into the obese category. That's always really entertained me.
I'm quite aware that muscle weighs more than fat, which is why I went for
the body fat calculation. I'm sure the measurements-based numbers aren't
completely accurate either, but as a measure of weight-related health
they're much more believable than BMI.
|
keesan
|
|
response 185 of 332:
|
Oct 15 18:46 UTC 2003 |
Jim is also borderline overweight due to muscle and I don't see any fat on
him. He has big bones (and duck feet). 32 waist, 6' - is this overweight?
|
tod
|
|
response 186 of 332:
|
Oct 15 23:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lynne
|
|
response 187 of 332:
|
Oct 15 23:39 UTC 2003 |
Did it matter whether you were male or female?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 188 of 332:
|
Oct 16 02:21 UTC 2003 |
What is "BMI"?
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/ceremonies/sentinelsotu.html doesn't
mention sex, but the height requirement is now 5'10" to 6'4".
|
munkey
|
|
response 189 of 332:
|
Oct 16 04:22 UTC 2003 |
BMI - the ratio between weight and height; a mathematical formula that
correlates with body fat.
Obese is considered having a BMI of 30 and above. Overweight is having a BMI
of 25 to 29.9.
That was on my test last week! I knew it!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 190 of 332:
|
Oct 16 14:29 UTC 2003 |
6' and 32" waist sounds reasonable. How much does Jim weigh?
I was bad - had cajun from the fast food place at teh mall last night. And
I didn't workout either :(
|
janc
|
|
response 191 of 332:
|
Oct 16 14:39 UTC 2003 |
Every time I see the item title "mynxcat wants to be svelte" I wonder of the
Grex login "svelte" is available.
|
lynne
|
|
response 192 of 332:
|
Oct 16 16:13 UTC 2003 |
re 191: grin :)
BMI stands for "body mass index". I believe it's the official government
method of classifying people as overweight, obese, etc, and therefore sucks
ass.
re 189: I believe you that you had to learn that. But I don't believe you
that there's a good mathematical correlation with body fat. :)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 193 of 332:
|
Oct 16 17:03 UTC 2003 |
Re 191. all you have to do is use "finger", but I'm sure you knew that ;).
'svelte' is available.
|
keesan
|
|
response 194 of 332:
|
Oct 16 21:30 UTC 2003 |
Jim weighs somewhere around 175. He wears a L shirt and S pants. The L shirt
assumes his waist is 38.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 195 of 332:
|
Oct 17 12:22 UTC 2003 |
He seems alright to me. Doesn't seem over-weight at all. (Though it's a wonder
that he fits into "S" pants, which I assume is "Small"?)
Breakthrough, the scale registered 153 at one point yesterday. It always
excites me when I see a new number on teh scale.
|
keesan
|
|
response 196 of 332:
|
Oct 17 14:53 UTC 2003 |
Small waist is 30-32, medium 34-36, large 38, I think. It is a problem to
find men's pants under 30 waist (I used to wear 28 waist but may have shrunk).
Shirts assume a 4" or 6" difference between chest and waist size and Jim's
is 10". Some people are bigger in waist than chest. I think that difference
would be more predictive of overweight than the weight/height ratio. One test
of amount of fat involves measuring the thickness of a pinch of flesh from
under your arm - should I look this up and post it? Mine is about 1/2" or
less right now.
|
tod
|
|
response 197 of 332:
|
Oct 17 16:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 198 of 332:
|
Oct 20 20:31 UTC 2003 |
There's this gadget at the gym that tests the amount of body fat you
have. You enter in information like height, weight and then hold the
handles firmly at arms length. After about a minute, it gives you a
reading. I asked the personal trainer what it did exactly. He said
that it sent impulses through my arms and based on how long it took
for the impulse to return, it could tell how much fat I had. Fat has a
different conductivity than muscle. That gadget showed me 31% body
fat. The trainer mentioned that those things were not very accuate
with a +/-5% accuracy.
The scale at home gives me a reading after my weight reading. I would
like to think that it does the same thing as the gadget, though I
suspect it just uses a mathematical calculation based on my weight,
and hips, height and waist measurements that you have to feed it. I
changed the hip and waist measurements over the weekend and the
reading dropped by about 3%. I'm not laying much stock by the scale
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 199 of 332:
|
Oct 20 20:37 UTC 2003 |
My boobs have gotten smaller!! First I thought it was a figment of my
imagination, but the fiance has confirmed my suspicion. While they're
currently at a size I like, I really don't want them shrinking
anymore!! I guess the rack was thanks to a lot of extra weight I was
carrying around.
Also, the one pair of spare jeans I had that I wore with great
reluctance when all my other pairs were in the wash, now fit
comfortably. No longer do I have my stomach pinched in uncomfortably
when I wear them, and no longer do I dread wearing these jeans. They
have come out of semi-retirement to be a permanent part of my
wardrobe. To go with the jean story, my favorite pair of grey pants
that I bought a month and a half ago are now pretty loose. Any more
weight lost, and these pants will have to be replaced. While it's sad
to lose a good pair of pants (lord knows how hard it is to find a pair
of pants that really look good), there is the sweet part of this
sorrow to know that it's due to weight *lost* and not *gained*
|