You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-332      
 
Author Message
25 new of 332 responses total.
glenda
response 25 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 15:38 UTC 2003

I haven't figured that out yet.  I intend to poke around the site a bit more.
Someday.  When I have time.  (Yeah, right.  I have already forgotten what
sleep is, where do I find more time. :-)
dah
response 26 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 15:56 UTC 2003

Holy shit 156?!  You must be short or anorexic.
,
lynne
response 27 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 16:32 UTC 2003

(sapna:  for what it's worth, 150 is just about my ideal weight. :))
mynxcat
response 28 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 16:46 UTC 2003

I'm 5'7". Definitely t anorexic. I can definitely see the fat on my tummy and
posterior, and am borderlining the healthy weight for my height and body type.
I've never had illusions of being too fat, if anything it's the opposite. I
tend to think I'm thinner than I am (which explains how I got here) 157 lbs
would have been ok, if I was also fit to go along with it. But I have more
flab than I care to know about and am definitely not eating healthy and my
stamina is shot.

I've been looking at fitday and 10 minutes of walking at about 3.5 mph burns
about 33 calories. Chatelaine says "running" at 3.8 mph is about 173 calories
for 10 minutes. My treadmill says its 120 calories or thereabouts, but of
course it doesn't know whether I'm runniong or walking at a very brisk pace.
Does the number of calories burnt actuall ychange with the fact that you're
walking or running? I think that's pretty interesting. And also leads me to
think that I'm burning a lot less calories than I think I am.

(I don't like running much, and definitely not on the treadmill. I can never
seem to keep in line with the damn thing. And I don't have the stamina for
it)
gelinas
response 29 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 17:06 UTC 2003

(Running uses the muscles differently, so I can see it taking more energy to
run than walk, even when walking is faster.)

Beauty is a cultural thing.  I don't know why the standards differ, but they
do.
mynxcat
response 30 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 17:09 UTC 2003

I meant "definitely NOT anorexic". The internet ate u pa cpl of letters.
scg
response 31 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 17:44 UTC 2003

I think I continued gaining weight for a while after giving up driving. 
Getting rid of refined sugar in my diet, after giving up driving, seemed to
be what made a big difference.  But hurting my knee earlier this year and
having to cut way back on non-driving modes of transportation caused me to
gain about 10 pounds.  I think it's a cumulative thing for me.

There are two aspects of exercise and calorie burning.  The first is the
activity itself, for which 20 minutes of walking should presumably be double
10 minutes of walking.  The second is that regular exercise raises your
metabolism in general, to the point where I find that if I'm exercising really
regularly, I start bouncing around all over the place when I'm trying to sit
still.  
mynxcat
response 32 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 22:50 UTC 2003

I had lunch away from my desk today, which means I had it in 20 minutes. I
was hungry again by 3:30pm. I shall stick to eating lunch at my desk. When
I do that, lunch is prolonged over an hour and a half and that keeps the
hunger pangs away till well into the evening. (I ate the same thing for lunch
today as I've been doing for the last couple of days, so it's not like I ate
less today).

Just joined California Fitness. A nice month-to-month program with the
initiation fee waived for about $30.00 a month. The equipment is good. I get
a free personal training session tomorrow where the trainer will assess my
fitness, work out some sort of plan for me, show me how to use the eqiuipment
etc. I'm looking forward to that.

I've also found that I prefer a bowl of lentil-spinach soup to a sandwich now.
The mere thought of those empty calories is enough to make the sandwich taste
of cardboard
vipla
response 33 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 25 23:30 UTC 2003

Question for everybody:HOW I CHANGE WEB PAGES?
jaklumen
response 34 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 01:53 UTC 2003

resp:12 "The Carbohydrate Addict's Diet," Dr. Rachael F. Heller and 
Dr. Richard F. Heller, ISBN 0-451-17339-2.  It's an alternative to 
Atkins, particularly if you find you have cravings on the Atkins 
diet.  You basically do low carb two meals and the third you have some 
flexibility by limiting eating time to an hour-- the idea is that your 
body believes it doesn't need to use insulin yet if you do.  Read the 
book over first.
keesan
response 35 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 02:31 UTC 2003

Are you allowed to eat apples or other fruit while at work?
Foods with fiber take longer to digest and will keep you from getting hungry
longer.  Whole grains, beans.  Can you take rice and lentil stew with
vegetables to work and heat it up there?  

Vegetarian (non-cheese) sandwiches are probably not going to keep you from
getting hungry other than if they are peanut butter.  Not enough bulk.
scg
response 36 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 02:37 UTC 2003

Simple carbohydrates (like refined sugar, or Gu) are sometimes bad because
your body stores them as fat if it can't use them right away.  The other
approach to eating stuff with lots of sugar is to do so during exercise.  At
that point they can provide badly needed energy, rather than "empty calories."

Sustained exercise will probably require you to eat a lot more than being
sedentary, since you end up burning a lot more calories.  I decided at one
point that if fuel costs were measured in miles per dollar, driving became
considerably cheaper than bicycling.  Somebody else I mentioned this to
pointed out that it was more true when biking from bakery to bakery in West
Marin than when biking from convenience store to convenience store in some
other areas.
scg
response 37 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 02:40 UTC 2003

Sindi slipped in with #35, and I'll disagree, at least in my case.  For me,
apples have a milder version of the surge of energy followed by a crash effect
that sugar has.
sj2
response 38 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 02:45 UTC 2003

Re #20, read my post. It says that I did not call her fat. Having a 
little fat on your waist and being fat are two VERY different things, 
IMHO.
mynxcat
response 39 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 02:50 UTC 2003

Whether you called her fat or not, my response was more toward the sentiment
that one should not call American women fat. You're rght  in your distinction,
btw.
scott
response 40 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 14:35 UTC 2003

As always, wacky theories about weight loss abound.  

Mine is that building muscle is the best way, since the muscles are what use
energy, even when you are sitting around.
mynxcat
response 41 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 15:29 UTC 2003

Weight Training is part of my program.

Today will be my first day at the gym. I'm excited. Have to get new sweats,
my current ones are pretty ratty. 

I realise that there are certain things that I will not be able to gibe up.
The morning cup of tea brewed the "Indian" way with 3 tspns of sugar is
definitely one of them (For a discussion on the indian way of brewing tea,
please refer to Item Ate) That's what gets me up in the morning!!

Skipped this morning's stretch exercises as I was late for work. Don't feel
too good about it, especially considering that last night's exercise was a
dud (Thank you NBC Premiere Thursday. The least you cld have done was deliver
an episode of Friends that was *funny*) However, I hope to make it up tonight.

I skipped donuts at work this morning. Go me. Though, I think if it was bagels
and cream cheese, I may not have been able to resist.
tod
response 42 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 20:51 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

munkey
response 43 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 22:54 UTC 2003

That's it! I'm gonna exercise too!
tod
response 44 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 26 23:12 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

jaklumen
response 45 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 27 01:16 UTC 2003

resp:43 rock on, rock on
mynxcat
response 46 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 27 05:29 UTC 2003

Had my fitness evaluation at the gym. Turns out, that I actually weigh 161
lbs, according to the manual scale at teh gym. That's 5 lbs off my bathroom
dcale. Could it be because of my clothes and shoes (I usually weigh after the
shower, without any clothes on). 5 lbs off seems too high. Anyways, the
fitness instructor says that weight should not be the focus a it can vary
largely due to water retention and such. I know that. Though I do liike to
monitor daily just so I don't forget to weigh in at the end of the week. 

The equipment is pretty good at teh gym. Lots of cool stuff. However, teh Butt
Blaster seems not to work. The peg to adjust the weights seems stuck at 15
lbs. Maybe I'll ask someone tomorrow to see if they can do something about
it. The cardio equipment mostly come wtih heart-rate monitors so you can
monitor and see whether you're in teh fat burning range. The instructor says
that given my weight and age, my ideal fat-burning heart-rate is 151-175. The
machines say 125. I seem to be able to go at 160 without any adverse effects.

Today was a breakthrough of sorts, I actually managed to run on the teadmill,
something that I loathe doing. It's usually a brisk walk for me. Of the 10
minutes I was on the treadmill, I ran for 5 which is quite a lot for me. So
that makes me happy. The cross-trainer seems to burn the most calories. I must
remember that and incorporate that more into my routine.

We also did the fat-percentage test. According to that little machine, my body
is 31% fat. 50 lbs of my body is fat. Howeer, for women, the normal range is
24%, which is understandable, though men can have a much lower fat rate and
be ok. So that's a little encouraging, I jsut have to lose about 7% fat :P

My suggested exercise routine is at leasr 30 minutes of aerobics a day to work
up to 45 minutes (and hopefully 60 minutes) I used to do this last year,
ebefore I fell off the wagon. Weights every other day. Seems liek a good plan
to me.

As far as meals are concerned, I seem to have had only about 1100 calories
today. This included 2 glasses of orange juice, Salmon with a little sour
cream, and a lunch of urkey sanwich. Also a Dannon's yogurt with fruit at the
bottom, some crackers, and a tiny slice of pizza. I skipped my morning tea
today, as I was running late. 1100 seems too little. But I'm not hungry. I've
had two square meals and a cpl of snacks. Maybe I'm not eating the right
things?
remmers
response 47 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 27 12:48 UTC 2003

My experience has been that exercise is a key factor in weight control.
A year ago, I was working out regularly, had lost 15 pounds, and was
well on the way toward my goal of losing 25-30 pounds.  Then, last
October, I had a back injury - herniated disc - that severly limited
my exercise level.  Guess what - the 15 pounds are back on.  I'm trying
to get back into an exercise regime, with the help of a personal
trainer, but it ain't easy.

Sounds like mynxcat is on the right track.  1100 calories does sound a
little light, actually, but if you're not hungry and have a good energy
level, I wouldn't worry about it.
katie
response 48 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 27 18:42 UTC 2003

Twice this year I went on a 30-day self-invented program (once in Feb
and once in June). Each time I lost 15 lbs. I never gained it back
in the 'off the wagon' times. These were my rules, and I cheated very
occasionally: no carbs, no food after 8 pm, work out three times a week,
walk an hour every day.
remmers
response 49 of 332: Mark Unseen   Sep 28 03:24 UTC 2003

No carbs at all?  Doesn't sound healthy.  (Fruits and vegetables are
carbs.)
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-332      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss