Author Topic: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.  (Read 225908 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2900
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1605 on: December 18, 2019, 08:44:54 PM »
We have a new gym in the village as the old one closed.  It is light and cheery and new gear; I rather like the weights and Olympic bar (all new).  A bit of getting used to, though.  There is no proper dip machine so I have offered to weld one together and the gym mistress will see if we are allowed to bolt it to the earthquake strengthening uprights.  Today she is trying to get a pair of 1.25kg weights as she can't make the 5kg jump with bench press.  I think they have to match the new gear.

It is in a reconditioned old garage in the centre of town and is the "Garage Gym".  The old "Mountain Gym" was an old Pyne's seed and fertiliser depot, and now the local welding/sculpture artist is moving in (cheaper and larger than her old studio).

NZ$10/wk (senior rate) and 24/7 access.

I use Jetts, which seems to have a similar price:

https://www.jetts.com.au/

And I can use any club anytime, even if I decide to become a political refugee and migrate to the more enlightened New Zealand from Australia (they have a lot of clubs in NZ apparently).
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5035
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1606 on: December 18, 2019, 08:54:29 PM »
As an aside, I’ve noticed on the forums there’s been an increasing trend to omitting apostrophes.  Is this laziness, or is it the start of a trend in changing language? 
There is a third option - error.
(or on the episode 753 thread a fourth - trolling excessively egregious pedantry)

It’s not pedantry.  I find it very off putting to be reading a very reasonable comment, and then to read a word that doesn’t have an apostrophe when it needs it or has one when it doesn’t.

Fluent readers don’t see every letter in a printed word.  They recognize the ‘shape’ of a word, and ascribe meaning to it in the context of the sentence.  ‘Apples’ has a different shape to ‘Apple’s.’  In the first I’ll automatically think of more than one piece of fruit, and in the second I’ll automatically think of some property of apples in general, such as colour.

Commenters should make an effort to ensure that their comments are grammatical with at least some attention to spelling (such as is possible with American and British practice) and coherence for the benefit of their readers.
There are so many things wrong with this post, not the least of which is the complete lack of charity on your behalf and complete ignorance of how people use the internet (hint: it's not to write journal worthy articles), and I would have just walked away after the last one BUT YOU LITERALLY CALLED YOURSELF A GRAMMAR PEDANT.
I'll offer the charity here and not accuse you of being a liar, or an annoying win-at-all-costs forum poster, but instead assume this was just a massive self own on your part.

I also don't need the last word on everything so I'll just let it drop here.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 08:59:39 PM by Jeremy's Sea »
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5035
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1607 on: December 18, 2019, 08:59:13 PM »
I kind of got stuck with my workout routine and realized my persistent inability to shed the last ten pounds has more to do with how I eat than lack of exercise. So I have been doing the 5:2 fast since September, and it's been working.
The weight loss is slow, but it's effective.

I do probably overeat a little on my two fast days since hitting 600 calories while living an actual life is damn tough, but it's really doing what I initially set out to do: reset my relationship with food. It does make me more cautious with my eating habits even on days I don't restrict, and it helps to manage my sweet-tooth.
I don't know how sustainable this will be for me, but it was nice to find something that integrated with my lifestyle. I've also discovered I can basically eat all of the vegetables I can possibly stomach in a day and still stay on a 600 calorie target. Seriously guys, it's A LOT of vegetables.  :laugh:
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2900
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1608 on: December 18, 2019, 09:19:32 PM »
I kind of got stuck with my workout routine and realized my persistent inability to shed the last ten pounds has more to do with how I eat than lack of exercise. So I have been doing the 5:2 fast since September, and it's been working.
The weight loss is slow, but it's effective.

I do probably overeat a little on my two fast days since hitting 600 calories while living an actual life is damn tough, but it's really doing what I initially set out to do: reset my relationship with food. It does make me more cautious with my eating habits even on days I don't restrict, and it helps to manage my sweet-tooth.
I don't know how sustainable this will be for me, but it was nice to find something that integrated with my lifestyle. I've also discovered I can basically eat all of the vegetables I can possibly stomach in a day and still stay on a 600 calorie target. Seriously guys, it's A LOT of vegetables.  :laugh:

My personal preference for fasting is intermittent fasting, which in my case is 23:1, meaning I have one meal a day (usually after 7 pm, sometimes after 11 pm if I’m going to a concert in the evening) instead of 5:2 (normal diet on 5 days of the week, and restricted calories on two days).  I find it easier and more consistent so I find it easier to stick to.  And I’m immune to temptations at other times of the day.  For example, if I happen to be passing a bakery and I notice they’re displaying very delicious-looking cakes...

It’s not unusual that you’ll hit a plateau regarding weight loss with just exercise.  As you exercise and become more fit, you become more efficient in expending your calories.  You use fewer calories during a workout of similar intensity, and you use fewer calories at rest (you might have noticed that your resting heart rate has decreased?). So your dietary calories match your output calories.

Exercise on its own is useless for sustained weight loss.  Weight loss diets might work in the short term, but are difficult to adhere to long term.  Exercise and watching your diet together are important.  And persistence, and not giving in.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10130
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1609 on: December 18, 2019, 09:20:36 PM »
Tanita said 6%, the trainer and I rolled our eyes; her callipers, tapes, and formula said 12%.  We both thought I looked more like 12%.  I think those impedance scales have a long way to go to be accurate.

One major problem with the impedance scales is that they have an ‘athlete’ mode and an ordinary mode.  The ‘athlete’ mode is supposed to be used if you exercise to exhaustion (more or less) for more than 10 hours a week. 

They give markedly different results if set to ‘athlete’ mode compared to the ordinary mode.  In my case around 3-5% instead of the more reasonable 12.5% (or thereabouts).

Why the impedance should differ in athletes compared to ordinary mortals is a mystery to me.  And why should there be such a binary division of people - athletes and ordinary people?  I can appreciate to some extent why gender needs to be set into the scales (although I still think that the impedance of males and females should be more or less the same).

The only use of impedance scales is to give an estimate of the trend in body fat percentage and body weight.  If your body weight and estimate of body fat percentage are increasing over weeks or months, then you need to do something.  Day to day variations don’t mean much.

I'm going to speculate wildly, that the difference between "athlete" and "normal" mode might be that athletes have more muscle (on average). The body contains water, fat, muscle, bone, and various sacks of organs & stuff. The scale, with a single foot-to-foot impedance measurement, is trying to tell you what percentage of fat to total mass you have. There's just no way it can do this. Being told whether a person is athletic (high muscle content) may help it be a little less (but probably not much less) inaccurate.
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2900
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1610 on: December 18, 2019, 09:56:32 PM »
Tanita said 6%, the trainer and I rolled our eyes; her callipers, tapes, and formula said 12%.  We both thought I looked more like 12%.  I think those impedance scales have a long way to go to be accurate.

One major problem with the impedance scales is that they have an ‘athlete’ mode and an ordinary mode.  The ‘athlete’ mode is supposed to be used if you exercise to exhaustion (more or less) for more than 10 hours a week. 

They give markedly different results if set to ‘athlete’ mode compared to the ordinary mode.  In my case around 3-5% instead of the more reasonable 12.5% (or thereabouts).

Why the impedance should differ in athletes compared to ordinary mortals is a mystery to me.  And why should there be such a binary division of people - athletes and ordinary people?  I can appreciate to some extent why gender needs to be set into the scales (although I still think that the impedance of males and females should be more or less the same).

The only use of impedance scales is to give an estimate of the trend in body fat percentage and body weight.  If your body weight and estimate of body fat percentage are increasing over weeks or months, then you need to do something.  Day to day variations don’t mean much.

I'm going to speculate wildly, that the difference between "athlete" and "normal" mode might be that athletes have more muscle (on average). The body contains water, fat, muscle, bone, and various sacks of organs & stuff. The scale, with a single foot-to-foot impedance measurement, is trying to tell you what percentage of fat to total mass you have. There's just no way it can do this. Being told whether a person is athletic (high muscle content) may help it be a little less (but probably not much less) inaccurate.

I’m speculating wildly too, but why should there be such a marked binary difference between ‘athletes’ and ‘ordinary’ people?  Can’t a person be a little athletic, or moderately athletic?

I use impedance scales, but I don’t have much faith in their accuracy.  I have a little more faith in their precision.  Day to day they give relatively similar body fat masses, usually within plus/minus 0.3 kg.  They’re reasonably precise, but the accuracy is doubtful.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4647
  • Post count reset to zero twice, but not this time!
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1611 on: December 18, 2019, 10:37:59 PM »
Tonight's ride: rain wind bobcat.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10130
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1612 on: December 19, 2019, 12:15:27 AM »
Tanita said 6%, the trainer and I rolled our eyes; her callipers, tapes, and formula said 12%.  We both thought I looked more like 12%.  I think those impedance scales have a long way to go to be accurate.

One major problem with the impedance scales is that they have an ‘athlete’ mode and an ordinary mode.  The ‘athlete’ mode is supposed to be used if you exercise to exhaustion (more or less) for more than 10 hours a week. 

They give markedly different results if set to ‘athlete’ mode compared to the ordinary mode.  In my case around 3-5% instead of the more reasonable 12.5% (or thereabouts).

Why the impedance should differ in athletes compared to ordinary mortals is a mystery to me.  And why should there be such a binary division of people - athletes and ordinary people?  I can appreciate to some extent why gender needs to be set into the scales (although I still think that the impedance of males and females should be more or less the same).

The only use of impedance scales is to give an estimate of the trend in body fat percentage and body weight.  If your body weight and estimate of body fat percentage are increasing over weeks or months, then you need to do something.  Day to day variations don’t mean much.

I'm going to speculate wildly, that the difference between "athlete" and "normal" mode might be that athletes have more muscle (on average). The body contains water, fat, muscle, bone, and various sacks of organs & stuff. The scale, with a single foot-to-foot impedance measurement, is trying to tell you what percentage of fat to total mass you have. There's just no way it can do this. Being told whether a person is athletic (high muscle content) may help it be a little less (but probably not much less) inaccurate.

I’m speculating wildly too, but why should there be such a marked binary difference between ‘athletes’ and ‘ordinary’ people?  Can’t a person be a little athletic, or moderately athletic?

I use impedance scales, but I don’t have much faith in their accuracy.  I have a little more faith in their precision.  Day to day they give relatively similar body fat masses, usually within plus/minus 0.3 kg.  They’re reasonably precise, but the accuracy is doubtful.

Of course it's not binary, and of course there's a continuum. But how is a cheap bathroom scale going to deal with that? Mine didn't even have the choice between athlete and normal. Apparently at least one maker thought binary would be an improvement over unitary. (That's probably the wrong word.)

Anyway, the things obviously don't work. I use a balance-beam scale now.
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2900
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1613 on: December 19, 2019, 12:44:15 AM »
Tanita said 6%, the trainer and I rolled our eyes; her callipers, tapes, and formula said 12%.  We both thought I looked more like 12%.  I think those impedance scales have a long way to go to be accurate.

One major problem with the impedance scales is that they have an ‘athlete’ mode and an ordinary mode.  The ‘athlete’ mode is supposed to be used if you exercise to exhaustion (more or less) for more than 10 hours a week. 

They give markedly different results if set to ‘athlete’ mode compared to the ordinary mode.  In my case around 3-5% instead of the more reasonable 12.5% (or thereabouts).

Why the impedance should differ in athletes compared to ordinary mortals is a mystery to me.  And why should there be such a binary division of people - athletes and ordinary people?  I can appreciate to some extent why gender needs to be set into the scales (although I still think that the impedance of males and females should be more or less the same).

The only use of impedance scales is to give an estimate of the trend in body fat percentage and body weight.  If your body weight and estimate of body fat percentage are increasing over weeks or months, then you need to do something.  Day to day variations don’t mean much.

I'm going to speculate wildly, that the difference between "athlete" and "normal" mode might be that athletes have more muscle (on average). The body contains water, fat, muscle, bone, and various sacks of organs & stuff. The scale, with a single foot-to-foot impedance measurement, is trying to tell you what percentage of fat to total mass you have. There's just no way it can do this. Being told whether a person is athletic (high muscle content) may help it be a little less (but probably not much less) inaccurate.

I’m speculating wildly too, but why should there be such a marked binary difference between ‘athletes’ and ‘ordinary’ people?  Can’t a person be a little athletic, or moderately athletic?

I use impedance scales, but I don’t have much faith in their accuracy.  I have a little more faith in their precision.  Day to day they give relatively similar body fat masses, usually within plus/minus 0.3 kg.  They’re reasonably precise, but the accuracy is doubtful.

Of course it's not binary, and of course there's a continuum. But how is a cheap bathroom scale going to deal with that? Mine didn't even have the choice between athlete and normal. Apparently at least one maker thought binary would be an improvement over unitary. (That's probably the wrong word.)

Anyway, the things obviously don't work. I use a balance-beam scale now.

Perhaps ‘analogue’ instead ‘unitary?’  Not that it’s important, but you made me think about it.  I’m currently listening to Spotify, Faures’ Pavane, received in ‘bits’ in binary code, instead of listening to it on an obsolete LP record in analogue form.  Analogue has an infinite range of values instead of either/or binary values of 0 or 1.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3013
    • View Profile
    • jt512
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1614 on: December 19, 2019, 02:46:12 AM »
Tanita said 6%, the trainer and I rolled our eyes; her callipers, tapes, and formula said 12%.  We both thought I looked more like 12%.  I think those impedance scales have a long way to go to be accurate.

One major problem with the impedance scales is that they have an ‘athlete’ mode and an ordinary mode.  The ‘athlete’ mode is supposed to be used if you exercise to exhaustion (more or less) for more than 10 hours a week. 

They give markedly different results if set to ‘athlete’ mode compared to the ordinary mode.  In my case around 3-5% instead of the more reasonable 12.5% (or thereabouts).

Why the impedance should differ in athletes compared to ordinary mortals is a mystery to me.  And why should there be such a binary division of people - athletes and ordinary people?  I can appreciate to some extent why gender needs to be set into the scales (although I still think that the impedance of males and females should be more or less the same).

The only use of impedance scales is to give an estimate of the trend in body fat percentage and body weight.  If your body weight and estimate of body fat percentage are increasing over weeks or months, then you need to do something.  Day to day variations don’t mean much.

I'm going to speculate wildly, that the difference between "athlete" and "normal" mode might be that athletes have more muscle (on average). The body contains water, fat, muscle, bone, and various sacks of organs & stuff. The scale, with a single foot-to-foot impedance measurement, is trying to tell you what percentage of fat to total mass you have. There's just no way it can do this. Being told whether a person is athletic (high muscle content) may help it be a little less (but probably not much less) inaccurate.

I’m speculating wildly too, but why should there be such a marked binary difference between ‘athletes’ and ‘ordinary’ people?  Can’t a person be a little athletic, or moderately athletic?

I use impedance scales, but I don’t have much faith in their accuracy.  I have a little more faith in their precision.  Day to day they give relatively similar body fat masses, usually within plus/minus 0.3 kg.  They’re reasonably precise, but the accuracy is doubtful.

Of course it's not binary, and of course there's a continuum. But how is a cheap bathroom scale going to deal with that? Mine didn't even have the choice between athlete and normal. Apparently at least one maker thought binary would be an improvement over unitary. (That's probably the wrong word.)

Anyway, the things obviously don't work. I use a balance-beam scale now.


Provided you use them in the manner Bachfiend described, they "work" for the purpose that he also described: they provide good estimates of long-term change in body composition. 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10130
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1615 on: December 19, 2019, 09:09:50 AM »
Perhaps ‘analogue’ instead ‘unitary?’

One of the scales offers a binary choice: Athlete or Normal. The other scales have only a unitary setting: They do not distinguish between the two. Everyone is just a person. Unitary. Though IIRC they do ask for your height.

"Analog" (or analogue) is contrasted with digital. An analog scale uses springs or weights. A pointer points to a scale or you slide weights along a beam. Sometimes the pointer or weight will be between markings and you estimate just exactly where it is. A digital scale flashes a number on a screen. It never shows an intermediate number. The ones I've had usually show fifths of a pound. Maybe yours show tenths of a kilogram. If I step off and on again, it invariable shows a slightly different number, except for the models programmed to snap to the previous number if the new one is close enough and the previous time was recent enough. Those tout how wonderful they are for "always giving the same answer" when in fact they're just programmed to not show the actual measured number if it's close to the previous number.

My balance beam scale, if carefully balanced, is still balanced if I step off and back on again. A good-quality spring scale, when new, is usually pretty good about showing the same weight if you get off and on again.

Provided you use them in the manner Bachfiend described, they "work" for the purpose that he also described: they provide good estimates of long-term change in body composition. 

Except that mine gave answers that were obviously way too far off to be of much use. How hydrated I was clearly affected the answer to a very large degree. Maybe it would be consistent if my hydration were exactly the same each time I used it. But I have no way to measure that.

Calipers are a better measure. Waist size is another since people do not carry muscle on their waist. Waist size does not tell you fat percentage, but it does tell you whether you've gone up or down in fat.
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 17477
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1616 on: December 19, 2019, 10:59:36 AM »
If I get some spare change in the next year or two, I will shell out for a dex scan. The university does them for around 100euros and I'm quite curious.

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5035
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1617 on: December 19, 2019, 01:06:52 PM »

My personal preference for fasting is intermittent fasting, which in my case is 23:1, meaning I have one meal a day (usually after 7 pm, sometimes after 11 pm if I’m going to a concert in the evening) instead of 5:2 (normal diet on 5 days of the week, and restricted calories on two days).  I find it easier and more consistent so I find it easier to stick to.  And I’m immune to temptations at other times of the day.  For example, if I happen to be passing a bakery and I notice they’re displaying very delicious-looking cakes...

It’s not unusual that you’ll hit a plateau regarding weight loss with just exercise.  As you exercise and become more fit, you become more efficient in expending your calories.  You use fewer calories during a workout of similar intensity, and you use fewer calories at rest (you might have noticed that your resting heart rate has decreased?). So your dietary calories match your output calories.

Exercise on its own is useless for sustained weight loss.  Weight loss diets might work in the short term, but are difficult to adhere to long term.  Exercise and watching your diet together are important.  And persistence, and not giving in.
I've never heard of the 23:1, is this something that can be sustained for long periods? Or is it something you do to achieve a goal? The 16:8 sounds like too much of a pain in the ass to me and a small disruption to my schedule would just constantly throw it off. At least with the 5:2 I only have to buckle down 2 days on my eating windows. 23:1 sounds like it might be easier to hold to as well, though I feel like I'd be miserable.  :laugh:
The one nice thing about intermittent fasting though is I can miss a meal on a normal day and not be thrown off or feel sick. It's kind of cool to feel like I have more control over food now than food has over me.
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5152
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1618 on: December 19, 2019, 01:47:01 PM »
I've never heard of the 23:1, is this something that can be sustained for long periods? Or is it something you do to achieve a goal? The 16:8 sounds like too much of a pain in the ass to me and a small disruption to my schedule would just constantly throw it off. At least with the 5:2 I only have to buckle down 2 days on my eating windows. 23:1 sounds like it might be easier to hold to as well, though I feel like I'd be miserable.  :laugh:
The one nice thing about intermittent fasting though is I can miss a meal on a normal day and not be thrown off or feel sick. It's kind of cool to feel like I have more control over food now than food has over me.

23:1 is once a day eating. 

I thrive on 16/8 and keep the carbs at an average of 100gm. There seems to be an infinite amount of eating schedules to choose from.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5035
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter your random excersize thoughts and workout experiences.
« Reply #1619 on: December 19, 2019, 02:08:48 PM »
I've never heard of the 23:1, is this something that can be sustained for long periods? Or is it something you do to achieve a goal? The 16:8 sounds like too much of a pain in the ass to me and a small disruption to my schedule would just constantly throw it off. At least with the 5:2 I only have to buckle down 2 days on my eating windows. 23:1 sounds like it might be easier to hold to as well, though I feel like I'd be miserable.  :laugh:
The one nice thing about intermittent fasting though is I can miss a meal on a normal day and not be thrown off or feel sick. It's kind of cool to feel like I have more control over food now than food has over me.

23:1 is once a day eating. 

I thrive on 16/8 and keep the carbs at an average of 100gm. There seems to be an infinite amount of eating schedules to choose from.
I'm pretty clear on what it is, it just sounds like it isn't an easy schedule to sustain over long periods. Especially with weight lifting and swimming in the mix. I don't even do the 5:2 on days I workout.
16:8 seems like it would be okay, except for my life. I have a lot of unpredictability, and sadly a large amount of my career path is social meetups which can be super unpredictable in frequency and timing. It's easier for me to control my schedule for 2 days a week, rather than have to control it for all 7. Though to be honest, I'd rather do the 16:8. I'm just afraid I'd break off of it 3-4 times a week.
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.