Jogging vs. walking



Blech. Sorry for the triple post - Google told me there was a server
error and to try again later when I posted.

Cathy Weeks
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Bob Marshall (pioneer forest ranger and wilderness
>>advocate) used to walk/hike with a light pack up
>>to 70 miles per day (in mountain country.) I know
>>long distance hikers for whom it's not unusual to
>>hike more miles in a day than I'd care to run.

>
>
> That's humping if he does all 70 in the daylight. I know I hit 70 miles
> in a race just as the sun is going down and that with a 4 am start.


Some of it was up here - well north of the Arctic Circle ;) Gates of the
Arctic vicinity, in particular that I'm aware of. I don't remember how
much they did in a day up here, but some was floated (faster) or had
substantial river crossings (slower). (His book Arctic Village was based
in Wiseman and some of his hikes were up near one of my study areas.)

More generally, though, he, as well as a number of surveyors and I'm
sure other biologists, used to do tons of miles and tons of peaks (don't
ask for a precise definition of "ton") in a day. Of course, the
surveyors had to carry all their surveying gear - not the little
handheld GPS units. Oh, yeah, and their ecology studies were a whole lot
more interesting to read than some of the modern ones ;)

>
> By the way while looking up race walking times I noticed that guy that
> came to walk while we ran was in the top 10 for the US. I knew he was
> good but not aware that good. ;)


You always attract the fast ones ;)

Dot

--
The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury.
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml
 
<< Some of it was up here - well north of the Arctic Circle ;) Gates of the
Arctic vicinity, in particular that I'm aware of. I don't remember how
much they did in a day up here, but some was floated (faster) or had
substantial river crossings (slower). (His book Arctic Village was based
in Wiseman and some of his hikes were up near one of my study areas.) >>

I was in the Arctic Circle
once, Jock Mok, Norwey.
I am reminded of Grieg...

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>
 
Dot wrote:
>
> Doug Freese wrote:
> > "Tom Phillips" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>Bob Marshall (pioneer forest ranger and wilderness
> >>advocate) used to walk/hike with a light pack up
> >>to 70 miles per day (in mountain country.) I know
> >>long distance hikers for whom it's not unusual to
> >>hike more miles in a day than I'd care to run.

> >
> >
> > That's humping if he does all 70 in the daylight. I know I hit 70 miles
> > in a race just as the sun is going down and that with a 4 am start.

>
> Some of it was up here - well north of the Arctic Circle ;) Gates of the
> Arctic vicinity, in particular that I'm aware of. I don't remember how
> much they did in a day up here, but some was floated (faster) or had
> substantial river crossings (slower). (His book Arctic Village was based
> in Wiseman and some of his hikes were up near one of my study areas.)
>
> More generally, though, he, as well as a number of surveyors and I'm
> sure other biologists, used to do tons of miles and tons of peaks (don't
> ask for a precise definition of "ton") in a day. Of course, the
> surveyors had to carry all their surveying gear - not the little
> handheld GPS units. Oh, yeah, and their ecology studies were a whole lot
> more interesting to read than some of the modern ones ;)


We moderns are such a bunch of wimps, with our
gore tex and ultra light gear ;)
 
>> What "tones" the body is loss of body fat. It makes muscles more
>> visible.

>
>I dare you to say that in the misc.weight ng. ; )
>>

>Martha
>


You know Martha, after an idiotic statement like that,nobody'll ever take him
seriously again (not that they did before)
 
Whatever you enjoy most.
You'll need to exercise for the rest of your life.
You'll stop doing it if it isnt fun.
 
On 17 Dec 2004 07:08:07 -0800, "rick++" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Whatever you enjoy most.
>You'll need to exercise for the rest of your life.
>You'll stop doing it if it isnt fun.

i know we hear that advice given from professionals
in the training game to newbies all the time.

i don't like it.

i think it sets the wrong "tone". you don't eat cause
it's fun. you don't put your shoes on cause it's fun.
same for exercise. you do it to feel better later.
maybe to improve the quality of your life, and probably,
with no guarantees, the quantity.

the fun part is after you finish your workout. i run a set
regime not because i'm enjoying it, because some days
there's nothing i'd rather do than lie down. i do it because
it will help me attain my goals. short term. long term.

i try to find words to convince people to exercise. mostly
it's just a waste of time. now, i usually say, just do it.
anything. half an hour a day. 10 minutes a day.
anything is more than nothing so there'll be an
improvement. and if you like the result, think about
doing more of it.

thsi doesn't work either. really, unless somebody is ready
to change, they won't. and if they are, nothing you can say
will stop them.
....thehick
 
Leafing through rec.running, I read frank-in-toronto's message of 14 Dec
2004:

> if you want to be and remain slim, eat less.
> exercise isn't going to chew up enough calories
> to matter if you eat too much.


On average, no. But if you're into endurance training, running can burn
quite a lot of calories. Running to burn calories is one of the reasons
that I run, but it isn't the only reason. There are all sorts of other
physical health benefits. There is something about it that makes me want to
also improve my diet. I'm not sure what it is, but it certainly helps me
maintain a well-rounded, healthy lifestyle.

Phil M.
 
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:42:05 GMT, "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Leafing through rec.running, I read frank-in-toronto's message of 14 Dec
>2004:
>
>> if you want to be and remain slim, eat less.
>> exercise isn't going to chew up enough calories
>> to matter if you eat too much.

>
>On average, no. But if you're into endurance training, running can burn
>quite a lot of calories. Running to burn calories is one of the reasons
>that I run, but it isn't the only reason. There are all sorts of other
>physical health benefits. There is something about it that makes me want to
>also improve my diet. I'm not sure what it is, but it certainly helps me
>maintain a well-rounded, healthy lifestyle.

sure. it works for you. i can remain slim without doing anything.
i just eat less. nothing to it.

i don't remember who/what the OP was, but let's presume
that they were fat. they won't be getting directly into
endurance running. they're just beginning. and most likely
they got fat by EATING TOO MUCH!!! if they continue
eating like a pig, and work out using up 2 or 300
calories a day, it won't matter.

most people are looking for a SECRET!!! i've heard it lots.
they say "i want to look like her. how does she do it?
she looks so good now."

when i throw in that she just eating better (less) and maybe
working out too, i get a C'MON kind of stare. "like, sure,
that's it. so simple. so easy for you. but it doesn't
work for me. i hardly eat anything." i'm real tired
of the "i hardly eat anythings" and next time i meet them
in the cafeteria they're shoving back a cheeseburger with
the fixin's or a pizza.

we runners (let me pretend i'm at least on the fringe), work
out regularly, we drink our water, we're in tune with our bodies
and if bowel movements aren't happening, we know what
to do to fix it. if we're tired we know why. if our hip
hurts we know why.

most people have no idea why anything happens. they see
no link between what they do today and how they feel tomorrow.
they don't want to sweat. they don't want to be hungry. they don't
want to give up chocolate. but they want to lose the belly.

this switchover from fatso/out-of-shaper can happen. it happens
to lots of people. i know why i switched even tho i wasn't fat.
actually, i was considered skinny by some people. my self-image
was that i was just way out-of-shape and getting worse.
so i changed.

adding it up...i tell people to eat better (meaning no junk
or chips or added sugar) and workout. if they keep at
it for a few months, then they'll be ready to hear more.
i don't waste my time anymore.
....thehick
out-of-shape
 
Leafing through rec.running, I read frank-in-toronto's message of 17 Dec
2004:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:42:05 GMT, "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Leafing through rec.running, I read frank-in-toronto's message of 14
>>Dec 2004:
>>
>>> if you want to be and remain slim, eat less.
>>> exercise isn't going to chew up enough calories
>>> to matter if you eat too much.

>>
>>On average, no. But if you're into endurance training, running can
>>burn quite a lot of calories. Running to burn calories is one of the
>>reasons that I run, but it isn't the only reason. There are all sorts
>>of other physical health benefits. There is something about it that
>>makes me want to also improve my diet. I'm not sure what it is, but it
>>certainly helps me maintain a well-rounded, healthy lifestyle.

> sure. it works for you. i can remain slim without doing anything.
> i just eat less. nothing to it.


I think we agree that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Achieving
that by eating less with no additional exercise will work. You will be
slim. Not healthy, but slim nontheless.

> i don't remember who/what the OP was, but let's presume
> that they were fat. they won't be getting directly into
> endurance running. they're just beginning. and most likely
> they got fat by EATING TOO MUCH!!! if they continue
> eating like a pig, and work out using up 2 or 300
> calories a day, it won't matter.


It won't matter for their weight, but some exercise is better than no
exercise.

> most people are looking for a SECRET!!! i've heard it lots.
> they say "i want to look like her. how does she do it?
> she looks so good now."
>
> when i throw in that she just eating better (less) and maybe
> working out too, i get a C'MON kind of stare. "like, sure,
> that's it. so simple. so easy for you. but it doesn't
> work for me. i hardly eat anything." i'm real tired
> of the "i hardly eat anythings" and next time i meet them
> in the cafeteria they're shoving back a cheeseburger with
> the fixin's or a pizza.
>
> we runners (let me pretend i'm at least on the fringe), work
> out regularly, we drink our water, we're in tune with our bodies
> and if bowel movements aren't happening, we know what
> to do to fix it. if we're tired we know why. if our hip
> hurts we know why.
>
> most people have no idea why anything happens. they see
> no link between what they do today and how they feel tomorrow.
> they don't want to sweat. they don't want to be hungry. they don't
> want to give up chocolate. but they want to lose the belly.


I think most people DO know there's a link, they just think that it would
involve too much self sacrifice.

> this switchover from fatso/out-of-shaper can happen. it happens
> to lots of people.


It happened to me.

> i know why i switched even tho i wasn't fat.
> actually, i was considered skinny by some people. my self-image
> was that i was just way out-of-shape and getting worse.
> so i changed.
>
> adding it up...i tell people to eat better (meaning no junk
> or chips or added sugar) and workout. if they keep at
> it for a few months, then they'll be ready to hear more.
> i don't waste my time anymore.


I don't go around preaching the good word to anyone. If they ask, I'll
tell them how I did it. I keep it real short - "Eat less. Exercise More.
That's all." But most don't want to hear this caloric deficit business.
"Caloric deficit? What the heck is that? Some new diet?"

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John
Short, South African coach.
 
frank-in-toronto wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2004 07:08:07 -0800, "rick++" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Whatever you enjoy most.
>>You'll need to exercise for the rest of your life.
>>You'll stop doing it if it isnt fun.

>
> i know we hear that advice given from professionals
> in the training game to newbies all the time.
>
> i don't like it.
>
> i think it sets the wrong "tone". you don't eat cause
> it's fun. you don't put your shoes on cause it's fun.
> same for exercise. you do it to feel better later.


From a different perspective (as usual from me ;) :

Ah, but the delayed response mechanism doesn't satisfy the
instant-gratification person. I put shoes on so I don't stub my toes or
freeze my feet on the ice. I eat to stop my stomach from growling or
fuel my running. Playing (aka running or exercise) outside usually
brings instant mental relief for many of us. I run to feel better "now" :)

> maybe to improve the quality of your life, and probably,
> with no guarantees, the quantity.


Some people, including some otherwise intelligent ones, value different
things in life. Until they have to pay the piper later in life with all
kinds of illnesses. But they still won't exercise, even when their life
depends on it.

>
> i try to find words to convince people to exercise. mostly
> it's just a waste of time. now, i usually say, just do it.


Hmm, now this would be a really good way to turn me off to doing
something. Many people are too free-spirited to start doing something
just because someone says so. We call it the "lemming" or "caribou"
response up here if you just follow others. And the term "exercise" has
some really nasty connotations to many people, including myself
(flashbacks of gym class, pre-Title IX coaches, etc). Now "play" is a
term that is not likely to turn people off, except for extreme
workaholics that feel guilty when not working.

The local REI had an interesting radio commercial a few years ago. I
can't remember all the details but it was a series of statements of
contrasts along the lines of "school is indoors; recess is outdoors". (I
know that lost a lot in translation and fading memory, but it was very
insightful at the time to encourage outdoor activity.)

Just a different perspective from others.

Dot

--

"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who's 99th birthday is Dec 19
 
I disagree. I run because it is fun. When it stops being fun, I will find
another form of exercise. I admire you for doing something that you do not
seem to enjoy although there are plenty of things you can do to get the same
end results.


"frank-in-toronto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 Dec 2004 07:08:07 -0800, "rick++" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Whatever you enjoy most.
>>You'll need to exercise for the rest of your life.
>>You'll stop doing it if it isnt fun.

> i know we hear that advice given from professionals
> in the training game to newbies all the time.
>
> i don't like it.
>
> i think it sets the wrong "tone". you don't eat cause
> it's fun. you don't put your shoes on cause it's fun.
> same for exercise. you do it to feel better later.
> maybe to improve the quality of your life, and probably,
> with no guarantees, the quantity.
>
> the fun part is after you finish your workout. i run a set
> regime not because i'm enjoying it, because some days
> there's nothing i'd rather do than lie down. i do it because
> it will help me attain my goals. short term. long term.
>
> i try to find words to convince people to exercise. mostly
> it's just a waste of time. now, i usually say, just do it.
> anything. half an hour a day. 10 minutes a day.
> anything is more than nothing so there'll be an
> improvement. and if you like the result, think about
> doing more of it.
>
> thsi doesn't work either. really, unless somebody is ready
> to change, they won't. and if they are, nothing you can say
> will stop them.
> ...thehick
 
"Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I disagree. I run because it is fun. When it stops being fun, I will
>find another form of exercise. I admire you for doing something that
>you do not seem to enjoy although there are plenty of things you can do
>to get the same end results.


I agree with Sam, if you're only in it for the after effects it's likely
you will not last. It ends up like a fad diet - back to being fat a year
later. By the way, I sure a hell do eat because it's fun. Sure, my body
requests nutrition but eating just like running, sex, can be fun. I
hope the old Catholic concept of sex only for procreation doesn't take
joy out of your nookie. :)

-DF
>
>
> "frank-in-toronto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 17 Dec 2004 07:08:07 -0800, "rick++" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Whatever you enjoy most.
>>>You'll need to exercise for the rest of your life.
>>>You'll stop doing it if it isnt fun.

>> i know we hear that advice given from professionals
>> in the training game to newbies all the time.
>>
>> i don't like it.
>>
>> i think it sets the wrong "tone". you don't eat cause
>> it's fun. you don't put your shoes on cause it's fun.
>> same for exercise. you do it to feel better later.
>> maybe to improve the quality of your life, and probably,
>> with no guarantees, the quantity.
>>
>> the fun part is after you finish your workout. i run a set
>> regime not because i'm enjoying it, because some days
>> there's nothing i'd rather do than lie down. i do it because
>> it will help me attain my goals. short term. long term.
>>
>> i try to find words to convince people to exercise. mostly
>> it's just a waste of time. now, i usually say, just do it.
>> anything. half an hour a day. 10 minutes a day.
>> anything is more than nothing so there'll be an
>> improvement. and if you like the result, think about
>> doing more of it.
>>
>> thsi doesn't work either. really, unless somebody is ready
>> to change, they won't. and if they are, nothing you can say
>> will stop them.
>> ...thehick

>
>
 
>although there are plenty of things you can do to get the same
>end results.
>


I don't believe this. I've found nothing matches the intensity, or WO you get
from running.
 
>but eating just like running, sex, can be fun.

If you use enough lube, right Doug?

>I
>hope the old Catholic concept of sex only for procreation doesn't take
>joy out of your nookie.


That priest "touching you" really damaged you, didn't it?
 
"Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I disagree. I run because it is fun. When it stops being fun, I will
> >find another form of exercise. I admire you for doing something that
> >you do not seem to enjoy although there are plenty of things you can do
> >to get the same end results.

>
> I agree with Sam, if you're only in it for the after effects it's likely
> you will not last. It ends up like a fad diet - back to being fat a year
> later. By the way, I sure a hell do eat because it's fun. Sure, my body
> requests nutrition but eating just like running, sex, can be fun. I
> hope the old Catholic concept of sex only for procreation doesn't take
> joy out of your nookie. :)


are you suggesting that my neighbor old lady Mcree had 7 children because
she like to procreate? i think she was a major hosehound that never heard of
contraception.

>
> -DF
> >
> >
> > "frank-in-toronto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On 17 Dec 2004 07:08:07 -0800, "rick++" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Whatever you enjoy most.
> >>>You'll need to exercise for the rest of your life.
> >>>You'll stop doing it if it isnt fun.
> >> i know we hear that advice given from professionals
> >> in the training game to newbies all the time.
> >>
> >> i don't like it.
> >>
> >> i think it sets the wrong "tone". you don't eat cause
> >> it's fun. you don't put your shoes on cause it's fun.
> >> same for exercise. you do it to feel better later.
> >> maybe to improve the quality of your life, and probably,
> >> with no guarantees, the quantity.
> >>
> >> the fun part is after you finish your workout. i run a set
> >> regime not because i'm enjoying it, because some days
> >> there's nothing i'd rather do than lie down. i do it because
> >> it will help me attain my goals. short term. long term.
> >>
> >> i try to find words to convince people to exercise. mostly
> >> it's just a waste of time. now, i usually say, just do it.
> >> anything. half an hour a day. 10 minutes a day.
> >> anything is more than nothing so there'll be an
> >> improvement. and if you like the result, think about
> >> doing more of it.
> >>
> >> thsi doesn't work either. really, unless somebody is ready
> >> to change, they won't. and if they are, nothing you can say
> >> will stop them.
> >> ...thehick

> >
> >

>
>
 
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:00:10 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I disagree. I run because it is fun.

<snip>
and so does most of the choir that post here. but the
average fatso hoping to lose weight isn't going to be
having anything approaching "fun". their lungs
will burn. their throat will be dry. their legs will hurt.
they'll get blisters. and you'll tell them if they're not
having fun, to stop.

well, they'll stop. for sure.

fun is so short term. they have a bigger goal. to get
down a dress size or two. to lose that belly. and to
accomplish that they need to forget about having fun
and just do the job. possibly after a few months when
they improve, they might start enjoying the sessions.
....thehick
 
>and so does most of the choir that post here. but the
>average fatso hoping to lose weight isn't going to be
>having anything approaching "fun". their lungs
>will burn. their throat will be dry. their legs will hurt.
>they'll get blisters. and you'll tell them if they're not
>having fun, to stop.
>
>well, they'll stop. for sure.
>
>fun is so short term. they have a bigger goal. to get
>down a dress size or two. to lose that belly. and to
>accomplish that they need to forget about having fun
>and just do the job. possibly after a few months when
>they improve, they might start enjoying the sessions.
>...thehick


Good post! He's so right too. Anyone here remember your first year or two of
running? If you came from a three pack a day cigarette habit like many of us
did, you'd remember there was no "fun" in those first few months or years",
just pain.
 
I certainly wont have kept running for 35 years
if it was convenient and enjoyable.
I dont buy into the neo-Puritanism that if its
better for you if it hurts.
All new sports will have an initial month of soreness,
but should become pleasureable afterwards.