Re: The Runner's Physique

Elflord said:

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Elflord <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Her running distances weren't constant. Maybe she can tell us how
many miles she ran in the last 6 months if she has it in a
spreadsheet.

Quoted message said:

According to the data in the Garmin Training Center database, I have run
450 miles since Nov 11 of last year. However, I have run approximately
twenty miles without using the Garmin during that period, so the total
is about 470 miles.

I commend you on your loyalty to your Garmin (-;

That would predict a weight drop of 15lb or so, assuming a body weight of 160lb,
and assuming running economy is the same as the typical test subject.

It would seem plausible to me that a woman over 60 running at ~13mpm would have
somewhat worse running economy than a typical test subject (e.g. college
student or athlete running at around 8mpm), so the numbers seem to me to be in
the right ballpark.

I use this software program and it doesn't give me the total mileage
run but it does provide total calories burned through exercise. It
says since January (when I began tracking) I have burned a total of
27,442 calories running (or the equivalent of 7 lbs), and a total of
42,507 calories (12 lbs) if you include walking too.

Looking at this program, I just realized I started tracking at 119
lbs, not 122, as I stated earlier. (I started exercising back in June
'06, but I can't be sure how much I lost because I didn't track as
carefully and didn't even buy a scale until January). But, I can be
sure that the net change has been exactly 12.2 lbs lost since January
19.

Probably all my restaurant eating out "cheat days" wiped out any
deficit I was trying to maintain... ha! Because you can look at these
numbers and assume that all my weight was lost through exercise
alone.

jen

Elflord said:

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Elflord <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Her running distances weren't constant. Maybe she can tell us how
many miles she ran in the last 6 months if she has it in a
spreadsheet.

Quoted message said:

According to the data in the Garmin Training Center database, I have run
450 miles since Nov 11 of last year. However, I have run approximately
twenty miles without using the Garmin during that period, so the total
is about 470 miles.

I commend you on your loyalty to your Garmin (-;

That would predict a weight drop of 15lb or so, assuming a body weight of 160lb,
and assuming running economy is the same as the typical test subject.

It would seem plausible to me that a woman over 60 running at ~13mpm would have
somewhat worse running economy than a typical test subject (e.g. college
student or athlete running at around 8mpm), so the numbers seem to me to be in
the right ballpark.

I use this software program and it doesn't give me the total mileage
run but it does provide total calories burned through exercise. It
says since January (when I began tracking) I have burned a total of
27,442 calories running (or the equivalent of 7 lbs), and a total of
42,507 calories (12 lbs) if you include walking too.

Looking at this program, I just realized I started tracking at 119
lbs, not 122, as I stated earlier. (I started exercising back in June
'06, but I can't be sure how much I lost because I didn't track as
carefully and didn't even buy a scale until January). But, I can be
sure that the net change has been exactly 12.2 lbs lost since January
19.

Probably all my restaurant eating out "cheat days" wiped out any
deficit I was trying to maintain... ha! Because you can look at these
numbers and assume that all my weight was lost through exercise
alone.

jen

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 15:17 GMT shinypenny napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Elflord said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

But that's the core of your argument. If you are running gazzilion of
miles a week, you are going to be fit?

No, it's not. My argument is, running helps improve body composition.

To dispute this is just silly.

Quoted message said:

teams) said the same thing. "You can't run to get fit, you need to get
fit to run."

One starts running a small number of miles and increases it over time.

... just like lifting you might start by lifting 10 lb weights and
slowly increase that to 20 then 30 lb weights over time....

Lifting isn't a weight loss strategy. Running supposedly is, and how
well it works when used in moderation Michelle was brave enough to say.
5lbs a year anyone? She could lose the same amount of fat and improve
her FFM with just lifting, even if losing fat isn't a strong point of
resistance training.

Quoted message said:

Andrejz's argument here is very silly! He might as well be saying:
"You need to have strong muscles to lift heavy weights." How do you
get strong muscles? By gradually increasing the amount of weights you
can lift over time. Duh.

And you get better at running by gradually decreasing the amount of
calories ingested.

Don't believe me? Stop your calorie counting and see for yourself.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 15:17 GMT shinypenny napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Elflord said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

But that's the core of your argument. If you are running gazzilion of
miles a week, you are going to be fit?

No, it's not. My argument is, running helps improve body composition.

To dispute this is just silly.

Quoted message said:

teams) said the same thing. "You can't run to get fit, you need to get
fit to run."

One starts running a small number of miles and increases it over time.

... just like lifting you might start by lifting 10 lb weights and
slowly increase that to 20 then 30 lb weights over time....

Lifting isn't a weight loss strategy. Running supposedly is, and how
well it works when used in moderation Michelle was brave enough to say.
5lbs a year anyone? She could lose the same amount of fat and improve
her FFM with just lifting, even if losing fat isn't a strong point of
resistance training.

Quoted message said:

Andrejz's argument here is very silly! He might as well be saying:
"You need to have strong muscles to lift heavy weights." How do you
get strong muscles? By gradually increasing the amount of weights you
can lift over time. Duh.

And you get better at running by gradually decreasing the amount of
calories ingested.

Don't believe me? Stop your calorie counting and see for yourself.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 15:17 GMT shinypenny napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Elflord said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

But that's the core of your argument. If you are running gazzilion of
miles a week, you are going to be fit?

No, it's not. My argument is, running helps improve body composition.

To dispute this is just silly.

Quoted message said:

teams) said the same thing. "You can't run to get fit, you need to get
fit to run."

One starts running a small number of miles and increases it over time.

... just like lifting you might start by lifting 10 lb weights and
slowly increase that to 20 then 30 lb weights over time....

Lifting isn't a weight loss strategy. Running supposedly is, and how
well it works when used in moderation Michelle was brave enough to say.
5lbs a year anyone? She could lose the same amount of fat and improve
her FFM with just lifting, even if losing fat isn't a strong point of
resistance training.

Quoted message said:

Andrejz's argument here is very silly! He might as well be saying:
"You need to have strong muscles to lift heavy weights." How do you
get strong muscles? By gradually increasing the amount of weights you
can lift over time. Duh.

And you get better at running by gradually decreasing the amount of
calories ingested.

Don't believe me? Stop your calorie counting and see for yourself.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 15:17 GMT shinypenny napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Elflord said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

But that's the core of your argument. If you are running gazzilion of
miles a week, you are going to be fit?

No, it's not. My argument is, running helps improve body composition.

To dispute this is just silly.

Quoted message said:

teams) said the same thing. "You can't run to get fit, you need to get
fit to run."

One starts running a small number of miles and increases it over time.

... just like lifting you might start by lifting 10 lb weights and
slowly increase that to 20 then 30 lb weights over time....

Lifting isn't a weight loss strategy. Running supposedly is, and how
well it works when used in moderation Michelle was brave enough to say.
5lbs a year anyone? She could lose the same amount of fat and improve
her FFM with just lifting, even if losing fat isn't a strong point of
resistance training.

Quoted message said:

Andrejz's argument here is very silly! He might as well be saying:
"You need to have strong muscles to lift heavy weights." How do you
get strong muscles? By gradually increasing the amount of weights you
can lift over time. Duh.

And you get better at running by gradually decreasing the amount of
calories ingested.

Don't believe me? Stop your calorie counting and see for yourself.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michelle said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Hobbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > > and most people will need a diet in addition to running for a
> > > substantial weight loss anyway.

Quoted message said:

> > As many runners have observed, this is not true.

Quoted message said:

> > Cheers,

Quoted message said:

> Actually it is, if substantial weight loss is the goal. Key word here
> being 'substantial' and how you define it.

Quoted message said:

Is 20 pounds substantial? That's what I lost so far. I have a friend
who went from 210 to 175 just from running; that's 35 pounds. Is that
substantial?

Yes, by my standards and by where you want to go I would say that was
substantial weight loss. I am suprised it was done solely by running
though. Was your diet already healthy? For most people I think eating
salads instead of fried foods would go a long way. I'm not an advocate
of drastic diets - I am an advocate of healthy lifestyle choices.

I'm not Michele, but I have been tracking my diet and exercise
meticulously since January, when I was running consistently. Unlike
Michele, I was counting my calories and watching what I ate. Worked
out to about 50% carbs, 30% fat, 20% protein.

Since January, I dropped from 122 to 105. My software program says
that I have averaged around 0.4 lbs lost per week.

I found I had the best success when I kept my deficit to no more than
300 calories per day. For some reason, if I went above that, my weight
loss stalled out completely. So my calorie deficit was kept quite
minimal on purpose. On days that I run, I compensate by eating
additional calories (the amount that I had burned during the run). I
also took frequent "cheat" days - eating out at restaurants about 2-3
times a week. Kind of a zig-zag approach.

jen

Both effective and sustainable. Hard to argue with that.

--
Keith

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michelle said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Hobbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > > and most people will need a diet in addition to running for a
> > > substantial weight loss anyway.

Quoted message said:

> > As many runners have observed, this is not true.

Quoted message said:

> > Cheers,

Quoted message said:

> Actually it is, if substantial weight loss is the goal. Key word here
> being 'substantial' and how you define it.

Quoted message said:

Is 20 pounds substantial? That's what I lost so far. I have a friend
who went from 210 to 175 just from running; that's 35 pounds. Is that
substantial?

Yes, by my standards and by where you want to go I would say that was
substantial weight loss. I am suprised it was done solely by running
though. Was your diet already healthy? For most people I think eating
salads instead of fried foods would go a long way. I'm not an advocate
of drastic diets - I am an advocate of healthy lifestyle choices.

I'm not Michele, but I have been tracking my diet and exercise
meticulously since January, when I was running consistently. Unlike
Michele, I was counting my calories and watching what I ate. Worked
out to about 50% carbs, 30% fat, 20% protein.

Since January, I dropped from 122 to 105. My software program says
that I have averaged around 0.4 lbs lost per week.

I found I had the best success when I kept my deficit to no more than
300 calories per day. For some reason, if I went above that, my weight
loss stalled out completely. So my calorie deficit was kept quite
minimal on purpose. On days that I run, I compensate by eating
additional calories (the amount that I had burned during the run). I
also took frequent "cheat" days - eating out at restaurants about 2-3
times a week. Kind of a zig-zag approach.

jen

Both effective and sustainable. Hard to argue with that.

--
Keith

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michelle said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Hobbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > > and most people will need a diet in addition to running for a
> > > substantial weight loss anyway.

Quoted message said:

> > As many runners have observed, this is not true.

Quoted message said:

> > Cheers,

Quoted message said:

> Actually it is, if substantial weight loss is the goal. Key word here
> being 'substantial' and how you define it.

Quoted message said:

Is 20 pounds substantial? That's what I lost so far. I have a friend
who went from 210 to 175 just from running; that's 35 pounds. Is that
substantial?

Yes, by my standards and by where you want to go I would say that was
substantial weight loss. I am suprised it was done solely by running
though. Was your diet already healthy? For most people I think eating
salads instead of fried foods would go a long way. I'm not an advocate
of drastic diets - I am an advocate of healthy lifestyle choices.

I'm not Michele, but I have been tracking my diet and exercise
meticulously since January, when I was running consistently. Unlike
Michele, I was counting my calories and watching what I ate. Worked
out to about 50% carbs, 30% fat, 20% protein.

Since January, I dropped from 122 to 105. My software program says
that I have averaged around 0.4 lbs lost per week.

I found I had the best success when I kept my deficit to no more than
300 calories per day. For some reason, if I went above that, my weight
loss stalled out completely. So my calorie deficit was kept quite
minimal on purpose. On days that I run, I compensate by eating
additional calories (the amount that I had burned during the run). I
also took frequent "cheat" days - eating out at restaurants about 2-3
times a week. Kind of a zig-zag approach.

jen

Both effective and sustainable. Hard to argue with that.

--
Keith

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Hobbes said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michelle said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Hobbes <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > > and most people will need a diet in addition to running for a
> > > substantial weight loss anyway.

Quoted message said:

> > As many runners have observed, this is not true.

Quoted message said:

> > Cheers,

Quoted message said:

> Actually it is, if substantial weight loss is the goal. Key word here
> being 'substantial' and how you define it.

Quoted message said:

Is 20 pounds substantial? That's what I lost so far. I have a friend
who went from 210 to 175 just from running; that's 35 pounds. Is that
substantial?

Yes, by my standards and by where you want to go I would say that was
substantial weight loss. I am suprised it was done solely by running
though. Was your diet already healthy? For most people I think eating
salads instead of fried foods would go a long way. I'm not an advocate
of drastic diets - I am an advocate of healthy lifestyle choices.

I'm not Michele, but I have been tracking my diet and exercise
meticulously since January, when I was running consistently. Unlike
Michele, I was counting my calories and watching what I ate. Worked
out to about 50% carbs, 30% fat, 20% protein.

Since January, I dropped from 122 to 105. My software program says
that I have averaged around 0.4 lbs lost per week.

I found I had the best success when I kept my deficit to no more than
300 calories per day. For some reason, if I went above that, my weight
loss stalled out completely. So my calorie deficit was kept quite
minimal on purpose. On days that I run, I compensate by eating
additional calories (the amount that I had burned during the run). I
also took frequent "cheat" days - eating out at restaurants about 2-3
times a week. Kind of a zig-zag approach.

jen

Both effective and sustainable. Hard to argue with that.

--
Keith

Melinda Shore said:

Encouraging trolls by engaging them is frequently referred
to as "butt-sniffing," which I think is a pretty good
metaphor.

Michelle is being drawn over to the dark side. Be careful, or you'll risk
being called a "butt-sniffer" too...

PD
(Yep, I'm still out here)

Melinda Shore said:

Encouraging trolls by engaging them is frequently referred
to as "butt-sniffing," which I think is a pretty good
metaphor.

Michelle is being drawn over to the dark side. Be careful, or you'll risk
being called a "butt-sniffer" too...

PD
(Yep, I'm still out here)

Melinda Shore said:

Encouraging trolls by engaging them is frequently referred
to as "butt-sniffing," which I think is a pretty good
metaphor.

Michelle is being drawn over to the dark side. Be careful, or you'll risk
being called a "butt-sniffer" too...

PD
(Yep, I'm still out here)

Melinda Shore said:

Encouraging trolls by engaging them is frequently referred
to as "butt-sniffing," which I think is a pretty good
metaphor.

Michelle is being drawn over to the dark side. Be careful, or you'll risk
being called a "butt-sniffer" too...

PD
(Yep, I'm still out here)

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 16:39 GMT Elflord napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

What they don't say (and what you read into it anyway) is that people lost weight.
There was a reference provided? Why didn't you check it?

Sorry, if your claim has moved to "running does not cause weight loss of any
kind", then I guess we'll just have to disagree. But it seems odd that you would
claim this, since I thought you also believed that running causes people to end
up extremely skinny, which presumably requires losing weight.

It is possible to commence an endurance (not the same as "running"😉 program and
not lose weight. I don't unfortunately have enough time to go through and do
this.

I'm not dismissing what you have, but it does contradict what I have seen and
experienced.

Isn't it because you see more of "many runners" instead of "most people"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does it make sense to run for half an hour three times a week? That's
what most people would call running.

Michelle's average over the last year would be about 2hrs a week (470 miles at a
pacve of about 13 minutes a mile). Perhaps you should ask her if she thinks it
was worth it.

Nobody knows if Michelle got fitter through running or got fitter to run. She
sounds a bit addicted, so I'll have my suspicions.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 16:39 GMT Elflord napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

What they don't say (and what you read into it anyway) is that people lost weight.
There was a reference provided? Why didn't you check it?

Sorry, if your claim has moved to "running does not cause weight loss of any
kind", then I guess we'll just have to disagree. But it seems odd that you would
claim this, since I thought you also believed that running causes people to end
up extremely skinny, which presumably requires losing weight.

It is possible to commence an endurance (not the same as "running"😉 program and
not lose weight. I don't unfortunately have enough time to go through and do
this.

I'm not dismissing what you have, but it does contradict what I have seen and
experienced.

Isn't it because you see more of "many runners" instead of "most people"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does it make sense to run for half an hour three times a week? That's
what most people would call running.

Michelle's average over the last year would be about 2hrs a week (470 miles at a
pacve of about 13 minutes a mile). Perhaps you should ask her if she thinks it
was worth it.

Nobody knows if Michelle got fitter through running or got fitter to run. She
sounds a bit addicted, so I'll have my suspicions.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 16:39 GMT Elflord napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

What they don't say (and what you read into it anyway) is that people lost weight.
There was a reference provided? Why didn't you check it?

Sorry, if your claim has moved to "running does not cause weight loss of any
kind", then I guess we'll just have to disagree. But it seems odd that you would
claim this, since I thought you also believed that running causes people to end
up extremely skinny, which presumably requires losing weight.

It is possible to commence an endurance (not the same as "running"😉 program and
not lose weight. I don't unfortunately have enough time to go through and do
this.

I'm not dismissing what you have, but it does contradict what I have seen and
experienced.

Isn't it because you see more of "many runners" instead of "most people"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does it make sense to run for half an hour three times a week? That's
what most people would call running.

Michelle's average over the last year would be about 2hrs a week (470 miles at a
pacve of about 13 minutes a mile). Perhaps you should ask her if she thinks it
was worth it.

Nobody knows if Michelle got fitter through running or got fitter to run. She
sounds a bit addicted, so I'll have my suspicions.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 16:39 GMT Elflord napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

What they don't say (and what you read into it anyway) is that people lost weight.
There was a reference provided? Why didn't you check it?

Sorry, if your claim has moved to "running does not cause weight loss of any
kind", then I guess we'll just have to disagree. But it seems odd that you would
claim this, since I thought you also believed that running causes people to end
up extremely skinny, which presumably requires losing weight.

It is possible to commence an endurance (not the same as "running"😉 program and
not lose weight. I don't unfortunately have enough time to go through and do
this.

I'm not dismissing what you have, but it does contradict what I have seen and
experienced.

Isn't it because you see more of "many runners" instead of "most people"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does it make sense to run for half an hour three times a week? That's
what most people would call running.

Michelle's average over the last year would be about 2hrs a week (470 miles at a
pacve of about 13 minutes a mile). Perhaps you should ask her if she thinks it
was worth it.

Nobody knows if Michelle got fitter through running or got fitter to run. She
sounds a bit addicted, so I'll have my suspicions.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:26:03 -0000,
Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Doug:

Quoted message said:

You might want try google to increase your lack of knowledge.

Thank you, Doug! I'd just about given up even skimming this thread,
which seemed to have run its course dozens of posts ago. But your
little gem above - I'm gonna file that one away. Beautiful!

Why dontcha just blow him? Charlene?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:26:03 -0000,
Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Doug:

Quoted message said:

You might want try google to increase your lack of knowledge.

Thank you, Doug! I'd just about given up even skimming this thread,
which seemed to have run its course dozens of posts ago. But your
little gem above - I'm gonna file that one away. Beautiful!

Why dontcha just blow him? Charlene?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com