wedgy!

Elflord <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In this context, what I meant by "normally", was, being somewhat
attentive to the fundamentals of nutrition, without imposing
excessive caloric restriction on oneself.

If you run a lot of miles and are somewhat attentive to
nutrition, you are going to end up pretty lean.

That might depend on your age. I find that most masters runners I
have talked to have to exercise pretty severe caloric restrictions in
addition to their running to maintain fighting weight.

steve common <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

steve common said:

nutrion

...

Quoted message said:

nutrionaly

if this hasn't been registered yet, I claim trademark and copy-
rights.

Too late. These words were first used in the original Star Trek TV
series back in the sixties. They were famously uttered by Captain
Kirk while trying to disloge stubborn Klingons from Uranus.

MarkH said:

Pendejo said:

Doug said:

Pregnant?

Quoted message said:

Could be, could be.

So you finally hooked up with Steve C.?

He's absolutely not the father of any fetus which may or may not be
growing in my tummy. Even if he did show me his "fuel bottle". Hell,
he shows that to everyone.

MarkH said:

trying to disloge stubborn Klingons from Uranus.

:-D

Elflord said:

Yes, but why would you ? If you increase your calories out, your caloric intake
doesn't automatically increase proportionately.

It does if you don't make a conscious effort to prevent it. Nature makes
you maintain equlibria. When you get tired you sleep, when you get hungry
you eat etc..

Quoted message said:

If you run a lot of miles and are somewhat attentive to nutrition,

....and have the right quantities of the right hormones and stuff cos you
are young and your joints don't ache and you have no biomechanical issues
through multiple silly injuries over the years and...

Quoted message said:

you are going to end up pretty lean

OK with your take if you remeber that old farts aren't like young bucks.
Old farts do not have the same ease for losing weight as you young
[censored] have.

I supect ladies have the same kind of (but worse) issues (eh ladies?)

MarkH said:

That might depend on your age.

Voila un homme intelligent

Elflord said:

I don't think providing wanking material for perverts sits very high on their
list of goals.

The "w" thing is the only sex I'm currently getting so don't call me a
pervert, you ripped Abo you ;-D

Elflord said:

That's why I don't recommend an emphasis on caloric restriction.

Dunno if this is any good

http://uconnsportsmed.uchc.edu/patientinfo/articles/female_athlete/index.html

h squared said:

point taken (with some reservations over your use of the word
"perverts"😉, but in my observations of the exercising public, a
reasonable goal for women who run (and men) is to look and feel more
attractive. it's not always about racing or personal bests. just sayin.

Sure, that's true of most of the running public. It's not true of the sub 3
women in my running club, who would all look just fine if they "only" trained
5 hours a week instead of 15 or so.

Quoted message said:

my bodyfat scale used to read 10% (now it says 18 or 20, and i realize
those scales aren't always very accurate too so it could be worse! ) but
when i would see boys that i hadn't seen for awhile back then, they
would ask me things like,
"you're looking awful skinny, have you been ill?"

I always worry when I get told that I look "healthy".

Cheers,
--
Elflord

MarkH said:

Elflord <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In this context, what I meant by "normally", was, being somewhat
attentive to the fundamentals of nutrition, without imposing
excessive caloric restriction on oneself.

If you run a lot of miles and are somewhat attentive to
nutrition, you are going to end up pretty lean.

That might depend on your age.

Masters runners also get leaner as a result of doing mileage. The
key differences are that their starting point is different (that is, leaner
than what ?) and they usually can't run as much mileage. But the principal
is the same.

Quoted message said:

I find that most masters runners I have talked to have to exercise pretty
severe caloric restrictions

How much mileage are these guys doing ? A runner doing 70mpw or so needs quite
a high caloric intake regardless of age.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

steve common said:

Elflord said:

Yes, but why would you ? If you increase your calories out, your caloric intake
doesn't automatically increase proportionately.

It does if you don't make a conscious effort to prevent it.

No, it doesn't. It's more complicated than that. The fact is that people who
commence exercise programs lose weight, without conscious caloric restriction.

Quoted message said:

Nature makes you maintain equlibria.

Lifestyle changes tend to change the point of equilibrium.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you run a lot of miles and are somewhat attentive to nutrition,

...and have the right quantities of the right hormones and stuff cos you
are young

Being young helps. Don't forget, the poster I was addressing in this thread
is younger than I am.

As for the old farts, you're not as well off as a young guy who's doing the
same thing, but you're still much better off than an old fart who doesn't do
anything.

OK, maybe you're old and fat and slow compared to yourself at 30, but
I doubt that the gap between you and couch potatos in your age group is
narrowing. You're what, 5kg heavier than yourself as a kid, how much
heavier are the couch potatos in your age group ? 20kg or more ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you run a lot of miles and are somewhat attentive to
nutrition, you are going to end up pretty lean.

That might depend on your age.

Masters runners also get leaner as a result of doing mileage. The
key differences are that their starting point is different (that is,
leaner
than what ?) and they usually can't run as much mileage. But the principal
is the same.

Quoted message said:

I find that most masters runners I have talked to have to exercise pretty
severe caloric restrictions

How much mileage are these guys doing ? A runner doing 70mpw or so needs
quite
a high caloric intake regardless of age.

Not for me. Get back to me when you turn 50... At age 55, I eat about 2200
calories/day running 70 mpw with 7-8000' of climbing (more like 78
flat-equivalent miles/week, I reckon). Not much is it? What do the tables
say, 100 cals/mile? So I'm functioning at a bit over 1k calories/day after
deducting running...it's ridiculous.

I took most of last week completely off due to injury, and cut down to
1600-1800/day, and gained 2 lbs.

I used to eat a lot more. One problem with getting older is that for me at
least, my appetite is the same as it ever was (same as it ever was...), but
I'll gain weight quickly if I don't eat less than I want to -- 1/2 to 1
lb/day. (The gain must be muscle which is only 600 cals/lb).

When healthy, I have two small breakfasts before noon, run in early PM, have
a snack/light lunch, and normal (by standards of my youth) dinner.

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

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, what was your weight for your 2:51:59.999999999 in ChicagoLand?

I think it was around 155lb. I wasn't in great shape for that race.

Ok, but no excuses next time...

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

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I know you didn't ask me but

The rule around here is "don't ask, tell anyway"...

Quoted message said:

2002 69kg 155lb 2:55
2005 73kg 164lb 2:59
2007 76kg 170lb 2:59

Amazing, you have proven in your last two races that weight makes *no*
difference whatsoever. And age has no effect, either.

Not only that, judging from your "training" prior to this one, training is
completely irrelevant. I say, eat, drink, and be merry, you lucky dog...

Quoted message said:

all at 1m80 5'11". I haven't been "notably non-fatty" since I left where I
was to go live with my current spouse (65kg/146lb in 1993). Pity I wasn't
a runner at the time :->

You needed her do drive you to that...I too didn't start running until my
future wife and I moved in together.

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

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nutrion

...

Quoted message said:

nutrionaly

Maybe you meant "nutria"?

http://www.nationaltrappers.com/nutria.html

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

D Stumpus said:

Not for me. Get back to me when you turn 50...

how much do you weigh at age 55 anyway ? Despite all the whining, based on
your times, I suspect you are in much better shape than the average 55 year
old. Do you think the running may have something to do with that ?

Quoted message said:

At age 55, I eat about 2200
calories/day running 70 mpw with 7-8000' of climbing (more like 78
flat-equivalent miles/week, I reckon). Not much is it? What do the tables
say, 100 cals/mile? So I'm functioning at a bit over 1k calories/day after
deducting running...it's ridiculous.

yeah, it is ridiculous. Getting numbers wrong is much more common than
functioning on 1000cal/day, so I don't believe your numbers.

But calculations aside, I bet that if you quite running, you would gain weight
on "1200 calories".

Cheers,
--
Elflord

D Stumpus said:

Maybe you meant "nutria"?

http://www.nationaltrappers.com/nutria.html

Tis true that I am always complaining about not getting any /castor/ ;-)

Elflord said:

You're what, 5kg heavier than yourself as a kid

10kg heavier than when I was my leanest as a working adult, 12kg heaver
than when I was a starving student. It's not all fat though :-P

D Stumpus said:

I say, eat, drink, and be merry, you lucky dog...

noooooo! Don't tempt me :->

D Stumpus said:

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I know you didn't ask me but

The rule around here is "don't ask, tell anyway"...

Quoted message said:

2002 69kg 155lb 2:55
2005 73kg 164lb 2:59
2007 76kg 170lb 2:59

Amazing, you have proven in your last two races that weight makes *no*
difference whatsoever. And age has no effect, either.

I'm not so sure... for all we know, if Steve had maintained 73 kg, he
might have gone even faster in 2007. No?

Anyway, I've always thought that your body weight drops naturally as
your fitness improves. Which is not *necessarily* the same as your
body weight dropping the more mileage you run... although more mileage
obviously doesn't hurt.

All I know is, when watching the Boston marathon go by, it's always
fascinated me how the elites are seriously skinny, mid-packers less
so, and as the day goes by, the runners get fatter and fatter. This
was particularly noticeable at the 100th when they waived the
requirements and had 100,000 runners.

But I am not so sure if weight is correlated to the amount of miles
one runs, as I have to imagine many of these runners were averaging
the same sorts of mileage to train for the marathon. I think a better
correlation is the faster you go (i.e., the fitter you are), the
smaller you shrink.

I know, I know... I've heard that you run faster if you weigh less,
but I've never found that correlation for myself. I ran my fastest
when I was actually at my heaviest... but my weight then was
attributable to a high level of muscle mass, not fat.

jen