Some good results there well done (especially PB). Some of you are gone under weight so time for the cakes.
SilentRunner do you want to officially join the table?
If so give us current and target in Kg.
Printable View
Some good results there well done (especially PB). Some of you are gone under weight so time for the cakes.
SilentRunner do you want to officially join the table?
If so give us current and target in Kg.
69.4kg this morning....slow and steady-ish.
Bad day, can't run because of calf problem, so last week went out for a cycle to Pateley Bridge and fell off the bike and cracked a rib, everything is going wrong apart from the eating, I am eating well, too well, 78kg but you don't have to put it in the chart Pat if it spoils the look of things.
I did & decided to cut out bread & then it's been suggested I maybe wasn't eating enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandra
Good luck with the recovery. I had a calf issue last year it drove me mad for the month or so that I could not run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Compass
Get your calories from good fats if this is the case such as avocados, olives, olive oil etc. I eat between 2700-3000 calories a day without eating much bread, if any so i'm sure you can hit your target calories too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BionicBetty
Attachment 5849
Why we are doing it!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...w-7573359.html
I thought they were holding hands 'til I enlarged the picture.
Betty, eating little and often is also supposed to be a good idea, as it keeps the metabolism revved up, so to speak, and stops those peaks and troughs which lead to feelings of hunger and weakness/tiredness.
And drinking lots of water, especially if you feel hungry. Sometimes the hunger disappears; if it doesn't have a healthy snack if possible.
Yes I find that best too. It helps stabalize insulin, which is a catalyst for the creatioon of new fat plus it inhibits the breakdown of it. I do struggle with drinking enough water & believe that's one thing I need to improve. I always go for good fats & try & not look at food in a calorrific way but more a nutritional. Thought I'd best weigh myself today, as haven't in months & think my guess weight above was wrong :o. I'm 76kg according to the gym scales, which I think is 11st 13lb :thunbdown:. So now I'm off to eat some dust & drink more water :angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by plodding bear
Sounds as if you have a really sound approach, you'll get there in the end and, more important, stay there - which wouldn't be the case if you went for a quicker crash diet. I too focus on nutrition, but I've had to realise that the healthiest food can result in weight gain if one eats too much of it. I suggest you do another food diary and see what has changed since you gave up bread - perhaps you have replaced it with something MORE calorific? And long term, giving up all cereals is a bit iffy - they are important for fibre & B vitamins. I have recently been inspired by Dean Ornish's book "The Spectrum" which is on healthy behaviours in general, especially foods. He has also published a book entirely on weight control "Eat More Weigh Less" but I haven't read it. Finally, I suggest you buy some scales, preferably with fat% monitor built in and weigh yourself EVERY MORNING. I find this quick feedback very motivating. Reading your fat% helps show whether weight gain/loss is due to a change in hydration/fluid retention. Good luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by BionicBetty
Sorry for the late weigh in - down a massive 100g to 80.6kg. Hardly worth recording!
Yes I think some scales that read fat % might be good, as my actually weight doesn't matter as much as what that reading says. The second book you mentioned I have heard of & applied similar principles 3 years ago & went on to lost 4 stone but I know I don't each as much as that now, so maybe that's another thing to change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandra
How do they do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BionicBetty
Bio-impedance.
Basically, they shove a few volts into one foot, and see how many come back out of the other foot. From the results, they can estimate body fat percentage.
Very inaccurate, I believe.
I got weighed today - think I've just about lost the '.2' kilos from the last one!
So, no real weight loss to speak of this week, although my waist is 4cm slimmer. I know why though - too many (albeit healthy) snacks and no running this week.
Hey ho, the battle goes on!
Unfortunately every year as we grow older, from a pretty young age onwards, our metabolism slows and we need fewer calories. So every year we need to adjust - eat less &/or exercise more than last year. Also, the lighter we are the fewer calories we need, so when we have slimmed down we have to eat less to maintain that weight loss - something that is rarely made clear, I imagine because it is so discouraging. However, this sounds worse than it is. I am aware that I eat about half of what I once did, but I don't feel deprived at all. It does mean that healthy eating becomes more & more vital, we can afford less junk in our diet as the calories diminish. It's like being financially poorer - wise decisions become crucial.Quote:
Originally Posted by BionicBetty
All ways of measuring fat% available to the general public are inaccurate, but I still think they are a lot better than nothing. Bathroom scales are inaccurate too. The trick is always to weigh oneself & monitor one's fat % on the same scales at the same time of day for the purpose of comparison and spotting trends. However crude, the fat% monitor prevents people from imagining that they have lost fat when they are just dehydrated, or gained fat when in fact they are suffering from fluid retention.Quote:
Originally Posted by whichwaytothepub
Some more expensive fat% monitors have hand grips so as to monitor the upper body as well as monitoring the lower through foot pads. I have never used one of these.
I think you should congratulate yourself on the 4cm off your waist. IMO a tape measure is more accurate than scales.Quote:
Originally Posted by plodding bear
Cheers Alex, I wan't too disheartened as I already knew where I'd gone wrong. I'm happy with the lost cms, I just want the weight down to make the running easier!
Silent Runner you need to re-edit your post to delete the quote section from around the table before re-posting it. that is [ QUOTE=DrPatrickBarry View Post;473884] and the closing quote after the table ([/QUOTE]).Quote:
Originally Posted by silentrunner
We cannot re-post the table if you do not.
Pat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentrunner
You've also put your name and figures in the wrong place.
That was me actually I added him to the end of the table as he had not provided the necessary details I had intended on putting him in the correct place once the weight/target details were provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan187
It is not a disaster I will just re-post an earlier version and re-key-in his details
In fact silent runner can you just delete your post so that we have only the one version of the table.
The issue was alphabetical ordering not the numbers (and it was my mistake)! You did it correct getting rid of the quotes but seeing as I have reposted the whole table can you delete your old post containing the table. It would be better to not have the thread full of multiple versions of the tableQuote:
Originally Posted by silentrunner
Dr B.
Done and done as requested.
Regards
Got weighed today, lost another 5.5lbs (2.5kilos to the europhiles amongst us!)
So that's me down to 90k now...getting there...
When's the next weigh-in?
this Wednesday I assume. Edale skyline for me tomorrow. going to be too hot for it. I will probably drop about 3 kg on it.
Good luck with that, Pat. I was hoping to do a local run (rivock edge) but couldn't get out of night shifts either tonight or tomorrow, so it's a no-go.:angry:
78.1 kg tonite, 1st weigh in for a while, reckon id be lighter in a morning!
must be these warm weather runs
might have to change my target weight at this rate!
Well I survived the skyline and knocked 35 minutes off last year's time. I reckon I was about 9Kg lighter this morning than when on the start line last year. Makes a big difference. Sorry to see you were in the Hall Betty we may have been in there around the same time I was in there for about an hour.
Not sure what will happen to my weight now I will cut back the running a bit, after the Trigger and the Skyline, I need a rest!! I only lost weight by running more I am not that good at eating less
I was 95.8 kilos and planned on being down to 78. However, when I was at university (20 years ago), my weight was between 73 and 75 kilos. I came across this fantastic article, others may have read it as well.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/if-y...ome-weight-550
After reading it and having a think, I may have to revise my target to lower than I originally intended.
A good article, that. I know what you mean about revising your target - I'm just going to try and keep on losing for a while, see what happens. Already the running feels a bit easier, especially on the hills so I have an incentive to keep at it.
It was interesting! It means my target of 12st is about spot on! And my personal ideal of 11st 7lb would be over his suggested limits!
....76.2kg and 73kg respectively!!
No Edale Skyline for me but was climbing at Froggatt. (Some impressive falls going on there...).
I won't be around tomorrow, so here's this week's weigh-in:
85.2kg
Just managed to weigh myself...at home, just as I got up, in my boxers!! :o So, I hope, this is difinatively my basic weight. 78.4kg. Cheers!! :)
Do you want me to take of 30g for the boxers?Quote:
Originally Posted by that_fjell_guy
Well that's me doomed to be an also ran then :). I'm currently 11 stone 12 lbs (or 166 lbs) and I'm 5 ft 7 inches tall so my 'average weight' should be 148.5 lbs, using the formula 110 lbs + (7 x 5.5 lbs). Therefore I'm already almost 12% over 'average' but, adding insult to injury, to stand a chance of winning a 10 mile (or longer) race I need to weigh 126.25 lbs (9 stones hahahahahahahaha!). Now, how to lose a 'mere' 2 stone and 12 lbs.............Quote:
Originally Posted by silentrunner
I don't consider myself a chubster by the way; more of fit but sturdy type. I mean here's me at the finish line of Sunday's Blakey Blitz looking not too flabby if you ask me:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3971/blakeyblitz.jpg
That said the winner of that race was stupidly skinny and light it has to be said
Stolly that puts me at 8 stone 3 to be race fit, two stone under my current weight. I can see it would get me up the hills quicker but I don't think I'll be seeing it anytime soon. And I'm not posting my glorious physique on here! You look just fine but you are clearly not fast enough :)
I have no idea what I 'should' weigh, if I want to win owt...
...but I don't particularly ever see myself winning a fell race, so I'm not too worried about what I 'should' weigh!
I just know that a good bit less than I am right now would mean more fell-fun.