|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 164 of 332:
| 
Oct 13 15:49 UTC 2003 |
egg beaters are ok, soy milk tastes like dirty sugar water.
soy cheese, soy yogurt, and *not-dogs* i can't stomach...
just the SMELL of not-dogs makes be wanna barf.
morningstar burgers, sassidge, and worthington fri-pats,
on the other hand are yummy...i like just good ol plain
tofu as well.
|
remmers
|
|
response 165 of 332:
|
Oct 13 16:13 UTC 2003 |
I think that there's wide variation in flavor between different
brands of soy milk. My favorite is Silk brand, red carton.
Full-flavored, not at all like "dirty sugar water". I prefer
it to real milk on cereal and added to coffee.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 166 of 332:
|
Oct 13 16:40 UTC 2003 |
I think I got the Silk brand. I got it as an experiment, I've heard so much
about soy-milk, I had to try it. As I said, I could get used to it's taste,
but I doubt it will replace real milk in this household. It might, if it gels
well in "Indian" tea, but I highly doubt it. Maybe if I get sereal, I will
makel ike remmers and put it on that. However, I'm not a cereal person, so
we'll see how that goes.
Keesan will be proud to know that my refrigerator is stock fuill of fiber.
Apples, grapes, carrots, and a mango. Also som canteloupe. And mushrooms, yum.
I think today's going to be a good day for food.
Workout this morning was great. How much can you trust the machines on
calories burnt? I know it will vary somewhat depending if you're actually
working the machine, or waiting for minutes to tick byu. I discovered the
elliptical, and spent an hour on it. Total calories it says lost were about
660. I did have it on teh high incline about 50% of the time.
|
edina
|
|
response 167 of 332:
|
Oct 13 17:18 UTC 2003 |
I love the elliptical. it makes your ass go away.
|
lynne
|
|
response 168 of 332:
|
Oct 13 17:50 UTC 2003 |
Not mine. I think I have hockey butt.
Y'know, I never quite trust the calories-burned number on the elliptical
trainer. It always seems like much less effort than the bikes or stair-
masters, and claims 2-3x as many calories burned. However, I still use it
a lot when I go to the gym because I like it better. (I have no scientific
basis for not trusting the numbers...if they're more or less accurate, that
would rock.)
|
keesan
|
|
response 169 of 332:
|
Oct 13 22:04 UTC 2003 |
Keesan is definitely proud of mynxcat's refrigerator.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 170 of 332:
|
Oct 14 16:37 UTC 2003 |
:) keesan.
I second edina's comment on the elliptical and asses. I can actually
feel those muscles get a workout.
I think the elliptical does get your heart-rate up, but with little
impact on your legs, or much less impact. Maybe that's why it seems
like the effort isn't as much? I definitely sweat a lot, and I feel
the muscles in my ass, and thighs getting worked, but unlike the cross-
trainer and the treadmill, there's little impact to the calves, which
is good, because a lot of times I know I can do a lot more, but my
calf-muscles feel like they're going to drop. Without having to worry
about that, I can go for an hour on the elliptical, work up a good
sweat, and not lose feeling in my lower-legs.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 171 of 332:
|
Oct 14 16:42 UTC 2003 |
Hmmm, I was looking at the internet, and I read that "Just a word of
warning regarding cardio equipment and calories burnt. Many cardio
machines if not all don't ask for your weight and tell you that you're
burning X number of calories. The number displayed is for a person of
average weight [Usually average is 150 pounds]. For many people the
number of calories is overstated. " The elliptical machine I use asks
for my weight. And even if it didn't, 150 lbs is pretty close to what
I weigh
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 172 of 332:
|
Oct 14 16:50 UTC 2003 |
And from
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/25/earlyshow/contributors/minnal
essig/main530806.shtml
Here are some activities and the number of calories they burn (for a
150-pound person, on average):
Stationary bike (at moderate level): 504 calories/hour
Elliptical trainer (general): 648 calories/hour
Stairmaster: 432 calories/hour
Running (11.5 min/mile): 648 calories/hour
Walking (17 min/mile): 288 calories/hour
which shows that the elliptical trainer numbers are pretty close to
accurate. Yay!
The article also explains why interval training burns a lot of
calories. The fat burning program on the elliptical is pretty close to
the interval-training program, so that would explain the large number
of calories lost.
|
keesan
|
|
response 173 of 332:
|
Oct 14 18:38 UTC 2003 |
I had better be careful not to overexercise and lose weight ;)
Do you know of any exercises for making the buttocks larger so that it will
be possible to sit on a less padded chair? Walking has not helped much.
|
slynne
|
|
response 174 of 332:
|
Oct 14 19:54 UTC 2003 |
Keesan probably would also like the pumpkin pie I baked yesterday. I
accidently used a can of regular pumpkin instead of the pumpkin pie
filling. In other words, no sugar. It wasnt too bad except for that
first bite when I was expecting something a little more sweet.
|
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".
|