Losing Weight and Getting into Shape

[1ADAM12]

Keep it up Brian! I weighed in this morning at 185. Damn my new body feels good

 

[Viewseeker]

Went from 195 to 215 during the holidays. I really believe it was do to the lack of excerise, well maybe a little to much food also. Have only ridden my mt bike 230 miles the last 3 months mainly because the trails have been to wet to ride. I weighed myself this morning and I am down to 205. Hopefully the trails stay dry.

last year I had a gym membership, realized it really just kept me out of the woods for $50 a month.

Im afraid of the same thing, spending the $$$ then only using it for a few times, waisting my time and moneys.. Best to spend that on Good Beers!!

 

[alistair]

Still stuck at 200, can't break below that magic number.

Running 5-6miles 4times per week.......sometimes fast sometimes slow/steady.

 

[Neil]

Still stuck at 200, can't break below that magic number.

Alistair, have you thought of getting beheaded? 10 pounds of ugly fat. Gone, just like that!

 

[rup]

I've said above that, after my quint by-pass,my exercise is up, and cholesterol is down. The 4 miles a day plus weights keeps it toned. Weight down to 185. For any of you benchmarking, my cholesterol #s are now:

Total 160,
HDL 64,
LDL 80,
Trigs 82,
ratio 2.5.

On to Ktaadn!

 

[AHIKER]

Exercise plus cutting down on food!

I am 71 and walk 5-8 miles PER DAY as I get ready for my second run at the AT. Today I reached 180 miles ofr this year. I need to lose 20 pounds
by the beginning of May. So far I am down 11#. This week I started doing knee bend curls holding 10# in each hand. Lasst week I looked over the AT profiles for Gorgia and saw that worst case for first couple of weeks was a 1000 foot elevqation rise for 1 mile. I did some trignometry and decided that this represented a 11 degree slope. So, I got on the tread mill and set it for 11 degrees. The hypotenuse for the 1000 foot elevation was 1.03 miles. So, after a couple of weeks I have set it to 12 degrees and walk on it at 3.5 miles per hour for 2 miles. This represents an elevation rise of 2700 feet.
I am hoping that this will help me go up those hills in Gorgia. At 71 I do not expect to do the whole trail again. This trip I hope to go 164 miles to Fontana dam. This is how I am preparing for my hike.
Gordon

 

[Tony]

Okay, I'm imspired

I am 71 and walk 5-8 miles PER DAY as I get ready for my second run at the AT. Today I reached 180 miles ofr this year. I need to lose 20 pounds
by the beginning of May. So far I am down 11#. This week I started doing knee bend curls holding 10# in each hand. Lasst week I looked over the AT profiles for Gorgia and saw that worst case for first couple of weeks was a 1000 foot elevqation rise for 1 mile. I did some trignometry and decided that this represented a 11 degree slope. So, I got on the tread mill and set it for 11 degrees. The hypotenuse for the 1000 foot elevation was 1.03 miles. So, after a couple of weeks I have set it to 12 degrees and walk on it at 3.5 miles per hour for 2 miles. This represents an elevation rise of 2700 feet.
I am hoping that this will help me go up those hills in Gorgia. At 71 I do not expect to do the whole trail again. This trip I hope to go 164 miles to Fontana dam. This is how I am preparing for my hike.
Gordon

I'm impressed and inspired both by your goals and the systematic way you go after them. Best of luck to you.

 

[Solitary]

And the winner is...

So reading the Nashua Telegraph article about Farmer's Winter 48 record breaking hike, several of us noticed this:

Welts began hiking two years ago to lose weight. When that wasn’t happening quickly enough, he began running and then running mountains. Since then, he has dropped 80 pounds and runs ultra marathons, he said.

So I wanted to mention that in this thread. He's an inspiration in many ways.

 

[Chip]

Somebody might correct me, but...Inclined treadmills and Stairmaster type machines are nothing like hiking a hill or doing actual stairs. I always felt all I was doing was lifting my legs forward on the machines, as opposed to lifing my entire body weight up the actual hill or stairs.

I've said this before; If you're getting a lot of exercise and trying to lose weight by reducing calories, you might need to actually increase your calories a bit to improve your motabolism, snapping your body out of the slow motabolism/starvation mode it could be in. That was my experience, anywho.

 

[J.Dub]

I am 71 and walk 5-8 miles PER DAY as I get ready for my second run at the AT....[EDIT]... Lasst week I looked over the AT profiles for Gorgia and saw that worst case for first couple of weeks was a 1000 foot elevqation rise for 1 mile. I did some trignometry and decided that this represented a 11 degree slope. So, I got on the tread mill and set it for 11 degrees. The hypotenuse for the 1000 foot elevation was 1.03 miles. So, after a couple of weeks I have set it to 12 degrees and walk on it at 3.5 miles per hour for 2 miles. This represents an elevation rise of 2700 feet.
I am hoping that this will help me go up those hills in Gorgia.

Gordon, that's awesome that you're going to tackle part of the AT! I hope I'm doing something half as agressive at age 71.

One quick note about using treadmills for hillclimb training. Treadmill inclines are usually given as percentages (i.e., grades), rather than degrees. In "treadmill language" a 1,000' vertical gain over 1 mile would be about a 19% grade. (Assuming your treadmill's incline numbers are percentages and not degrees, your 2 miles at 12 percent grade would net you a vertical gain of 1,200' rather than 2,700'.)

Most treadmills have a max incline of somewhere around 15%, so you might think of working your way up to whatever your machine's maximum is and just leaving it there. I'm using my treadmill to train for Rainier this summer and I had the same confusion about degrees/percent grade until a friend set me straight.

I use this handy online vertical gain calculator here.


Good luck on your hike!

 

[DougPaul]

Somebody might correct me, but...Inclined treadmills and Stairmaster type machines are nothing like hiking a hill or doing actual stairs. I always felt all I was doing was lifting my legs forward on the machines, as opposed to lifing my entire body weight up the actual hill or stairs.

Strictly speaking (basic physics):
work (=energy expended) = force * distance
power = work / time
(Note that the force and the distance must point in the same direction. Otherwise, we have to bring in vector math: work = force_vector <dot> distance_vector.)

However, in practice the body is not 100% efficient, so the type of motion could make a difference. And while the physics says that moving on the level (no change in the altitude means that distance=0) consumes no energy, the inefficiency of walking consumes energy. A slow bike (for minimum air resistance) on a smooth surface is far more efficient.

I would expect that walking up a ramp and walking up an inclined treadmill* (without using hand holds) at the same angles and speeds for the same length of time would consume the same amount of energy. The altitude change would be the same (work = weight * altitude_change) and since the motions would be the same (or at least very similar) the efficiencies should be the same (or at least very similar).

* The motor is subtracting energy from the system (force*distance where the distance is negative)--you have to add energy at the same rate to stay on the tread.

Doug

 

[TCD]

What's polkadot dress? Polka Dress cosine theta.

What do you get when you cross a violin player with a mountain climber? You can't do it, the mountain climber is a scala(e)r.

etc.

Seriously, I think you're right about the treadmill incline, but I don't think the same applies to a stair stepper with moving steps. There, the work being done is set by the resistance of the steps to being pushed down. Asuming no handholds, the usable range of the step resistance is from zero to just less than user bodyweight. If the resistance is set low, the work being done is only moving the center of mass of each of your legs up and down, plus some rotational and inefficiency terms.

Fun stuff.

TCD

 

[Chip]

... the work being done is only moving the center of mass of each of your legs up and down, plus some rotational and inefficiency terms.

TCD

That's what I'm talking about; you're not actually lifting and moving all of your own weight forward/up - the ramp or stairs are coming down to meet you. (Not a Scientific analysis, I know, just my suspicion.) I know people that can do machines all day that would wilt on a trail.

Plus the fact that training walking down hill is at least as important as walking up.

 

[DougPaul]

Seriously, I think you're right about the treadmill incline, but I don't think the same applies to a stair stepper with moving steps. There, the work being done is set by the resistance of the steps to being pushed down. Asuming no handholds, the usable range of the step resistance is from zero to just less than user bodyweight. If the resistance is set low, the work being done is only moving the center of mass of each of your legs up and down, plus some rotational and inefficiency terms.

I think in both cases one would have to compare the "natural" event with a corresponding machine driven at a steady speed by a strong motor so the user couldn't make the "ground" respond to his motions. (The "stepper" would have to be a rotating staircase (ie a descending escalator), not the two independent resistance units found on the only stepper that I have used.)

Doug

 

[J.Dub]

The "stepper" would have to be a rotating staircase (ie a descending escalator), not the two independent resistance units found on the only stepper that I have used.

Yes, you want a "stair mill" like the old skool StairMasters BITD...

...and not the "stair stepper" like is often seen in home applications:

Question for the physics geeks: would it make a substantive dfference in work effort if you move your body up fixed stairs (like a stadium or a hi-rise stairwell) or if you step up onto a rotating step on a stairmill? It seems like the stairmill should be easier, since the steps are falling down away from you, but you still have to push your body up onto the next step, even though you don't actually climb any higher.

Interesting...

 

[DougPaul]

Yes, you want a "stair mill" like the old skool StairMasters BITD...

OK. Never tried one... (Don't recall ever having seen one either.)

Question for the physics geeks: would it make a substantive dfference in work effort if you move your body up fixed stairs (like a stadium or a hi-rise stairwell) or if you step up onto a rotating step on a stairmill? It seems like the stairmill should be easier, since the steps are falling down away from you, but you still have to push your body up onto the next step, even though you don't actually climb any higher.

I already answered this one a few posts ago--the same.

Work equals force times distance. Your feet are still supporting the same amount of weight and they climb the same distance.

Doug

 

[Billy]

Yes, you want a "stair mill" like the old skool StairMasters BITD...Question for the physics geeks: would it make a substantive dfference in work effort if you move your body up fixed stairs (like a stadium or a hi-rise stairwell) or if you step up onto a rotating step on a stairmill? It seems like the stairmill should be easier, since the steps are falling down away from you, but you still have to push your body up onto the next step, even though you don't actually climb any higher...

I already answered this one a few posts ago--the same.

Work equals force times distance. Your feet are still supporting the same amount of weight and they climb the same distance.

Doug

Nope. Not true. J.Dub is correct. It is possible to cheat a little on these machines...you can place your foot up on the next step and kinda just let the rotation of the machine bring your foot back under you. It's a subtle difference, and you can only do it if the machine is rotating relatively slowly, but you can make it a bit easier than real stairs if you want. Having said that, I have to say it is THE best aerobic gym device I've ever used (unfortunately several years ago). Awesome piece of equipment. Suprised they're so rare these days...maybe too much maintenance??? But real stairs are still better and harder.

 

[jfb]

Somebody might correct me, but...Inclined treadmills and Stairmaster type machines are nothing like hiking a hill or doing actual stairs. I always felt all I was doing was lifting my legs forward on the machines, as opposed to lifing my entire body weight up the actual hill or stairs.

Comparing your heart rates ( after you've warmed up) while using machines vs. the real world might confirm your suspicion.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Ok, enough theory.

How are we doing?

Since 12/1/9, I've lost 12 pounds.

In short, fewer calories consumed, (including less beer!), and more exercise.

 

[Chip]

That's excellent, Tom, congrats, but the beer misses you. I've only lost about 4lbs, some increase in exercise and no real diet change.

Back to the argument at hand: My experience is that machines don't provide the same level of exercise that the street or hills do, but this may be more related to level/featureless/smooth experience in a gym versus the off balance/lumps/bumps and slips inherent in real world exercise.

Again, regardless; You're not getting the necessary downhill exercise on a machine. Any exercise is good, hiking up and down hills repeatedly with weight is better.