Running for weight loss?
ih4553
all contridicted itself, so I decided to start looking on the internet,
which confused me even more...
Here's my situation... I'm 28 yrs old, 6'2" tall and about 215lbs. I
would like to get down to around 190 lbs, which I feel would be close
to my ideal weight. I started running about a week ago, I warm up for
a couple minutes by walking, then run at a slow pace (a treadmill shows
4.5 to 5 miles per hour), then cool down by walking a couple minutes.
I've been running every morning because I enjoy getting out for the
fresh air and I'm up to 19 minutes of straight running. My big
questions are these:
I've heard that the best weight loss is acheived in the running AFTER
15 minutes of continuous running, is that true?
How much should I be running daily to slowly obtain my ideal weight?
Should I be running daily?
Once I achieve my ideal weight, how much should I run to maintain it?
Is it better to run on a treadmill or outside, or maybe alternate?
Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!
John B.
Running, in and of itself, is not going to take any weight off you. If
you run and maintain a low-calorie diet, then you will lose weight
faster than if you run without watching your diet. I've read that you
have to run upwards of 25 miles/week to lose weight solely from running
and my experience has borne that out.
Donovan Rebbechi
> I'm a beginning runner and I've heard so much from so many people that
> all contridicted itself, so I decided to start looking on the internet,
> which confused me even more...
>
> Here's my situation... I'm 28 yrs old, 6'2" tall and about 215lbs. I
> would like to get down to around 190 lbs, which I feel would be close
> to my ideal weight. I started running about a week ago, I warm up for
> a couple minutes by walking, then run at a slow pace (a treadmill shows
> 4.5 to 5 miles per hour), then cool down by walking a couple minutes.
> I've been running every morning because I enjoy getting out for the
> fresh air and I'm up to 19 minutes of straight running. My big
> questions are these:
>
> I've heard that the best weight loss is acheived in the running AFTER
> 15 minutes of continuous running, is that true?
No. It's a myth. The *marginal* weight loss from 5 minutes of running does not
depend on how many minutes you've been running.
However, it's also a moot point, since you're not going to lose much weight
if you run 15 minutes a day.
> How much should I be running daily to slowly obtain my ideal weight?
> Should I be running daily?
Depends on how quickly you want to lose weight.
At 215lb, you burn about 150 calories per mile of running.
If you run 2 miles, three times a week, that's about 900 calories per week, so
it would take 4 weeks to lose 1lb (about 3500 calories/lb weight loss), or 2
years to get to your "ideal weight".
> Once I achieve my ideal weight, how much should I run to maintain it?
Depends on whether you want to maintain it, and whether you're willing to maintain
it by other means besides running.
> Is it better to run on a treadmill or outside, or maybe alternate?
Doesn't make any difference as far as weight loss is concerned. Do whichever
you find more enjoyable.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
seatos...@yahoo.com
appetite. You will get your high from running instead of eating. The
running high is better than the food high. Studies overwhelming show
that eating fruits and vegetables is good for you.
Learn to enjoy these kinds of foods. Whatever you do avoid soft drinks
as they are loaded with simple sugar.
Frank Boettcher
Somewhere I read you will burn about 750- 800 calories an hour with a
nine to ten minute pace. there is also a permanent metabolism effect,
that is, you will burn more calories when not running after your
metabloism has been adjusted by the running.
You can do the math. If you take in more calories while running, you
will not lose any weight.
I went from 196 to 168 over a period of five years, not doing any
special dieting other than eating sensibly, avoiding sugar, salt,
trans fats, and processed carbs and adding fruits, vegetables, whole
grains and good fats. Not measuring quantity, eating until satisfied.
..and running, increasing mileage from about 24 per week up to my
current of 33-36 miles per week, with a few rare injury breaks.
I'm pushing 60, so losing weight might be a little harder for me. At
your age, if you look at both running and proper diet, you should have
no problem.
Frank
Craig Pennington
> ih4553 wrote:
[snip]
>> Here's my situation... I'm 28 yrs old, 6'2" tall and about 215lbs. I
>> would like to get down to around 190 lbs, which I feel would be close
>> to my ideal weight.
That's about where I am now (6'2" and 190-) and, yeah, it's a good
weight. I was 250- when I started running in April 2005. I've changed my
lifestyle to a degree bordering on a religious conversion. I doubt most
people would want or need to do so -- I have done so because I enjoy it.
>> I started running about a week ago, I warm up for
>> a couple minutes by walking, then run at a slow pace (a treadmill shows
>> 4.5 to 5 miles per hour), then cool down by walking a couple minutes.
>> I've been running every morning because I enjoy getting out for the
>> fresh air and I'm up to 19 minutes of straight running.
Great work. That's about how I started, but I only ran every other day
initially. Now I run 4-5 days a week and cross-train on the bike 1-2
days. I am a bit older and perhaps more prone to injury, so I was (and
am) concerned about running too many days in a row without recovery. I
usually take Saturday off exercise in order to get some other stuff done
(and this lets me have a few cocktails/glasses of wine/pints on Friday
night as well -- read '/' as an 'inclusive or') and I usually take
Monday off to sleep in (since I usually start my daily excercise before
dawn.)
>> My big
>> questions are these:
>> I've heard that the best weight loss is acheived in the running AFTER
>> 15 minutes of continuous running, is that true?
I don't recall how it worked for me. I began logging my weight August
2005 and by then I was just at 220, so had already lost a little under 30
pounds. At that time, I had just recently worked up to a 4+ mile long
run.
>> How much should I be running daily to slowly obtain my ideal weight?
Here's an online book on the topic of weight loss that I found
interesting and useful:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/
It focuses more on diet, but the basic message is that a pound of fat is
about 3500 calories. Eat 3500 calories a week less than you need and
you will lose about a pound. That's a gross oversimplification, I'm
sure, but it has worked for me. I plan on being about 180 pounds in
March, so I'm looking to lose weight a little more slowly than a pound a
week, but I will be using that formula to target my intake.
Running changes how many calories you need. For example, I estimate my
current needs to be about 3700/day given my current activity level. I
eat about 3300-3400 in three meals and two inter-meal snacks. NB: this is
a daily average over a week. The daily total varies depending on hunger
and needs. I try *never* to let myself get really hungry -- that leads
to eating more than neccessary (it can also slow metabolism and thus
lower basal calorie needs, which can slow weight loss even when keeping
calorie intake the same for obvious reasons.) Hunger is your enemy, but
not in the way you might think (at least not in the way I did think.)
Eat enough food (and I mean FOOD, not just low-calorie bulk) to avoid
hunger. Never let your body get into a state where it slows down your
metabolism due to a perceived time of need (i.e. if you eat like your
ancestors had to when food was scarce, your body will start to conserve
calories on its own in the same way your ancestors' bodies did in order
to keep them alive and sufficiently healthy long enough to reproduce.)
I also changed the quality of the food I eat. My regular rice side is
now American Wild Rice (nice and nutty) rather than Basmati. My regular
lunch is turkey sandwiches with mustard, shelled edamame (soy beans,
salted) and cottage cheese rather than a roast beef sandwich and potato
salad. I still eat out, but less frequently. And I always have a
favorite high-cal meal (often lamb, rare, potatoes or maybe sweet
potatoes or yams, corn on the cobb) on Friday night, so I don'y miss my
favorite foods.
>> Should I be running daily?
Some recovery time is important. Like I said, I take at least two days a
week off of running, but I'm north of 40. It depends on what your body
can handle, and it likely can't handle as much as you think.
>> Once I achieve my ideal weight, how much should I run to maintain it?
30 minutes a day of aerobic exercise is a number I see often. I plan on
keeping at about an average of an hour a day when I run out of race
goals (current long term goal -- a March marathon) but that's because
that's the level I find very comfortable. Things may change. See what
you enjoy (and if you don't enjoy it, find something that you do enjoy.)
>> Is it better to run on a treadmill or outside, or maybe alternate?
It depends. Personally, I'd rather be outside. But then, I have some
great paved trails in my area which lend themselves to my style of
running (an alternative interpretation is that my running has adapted to
the available environment, but I prefer to think that I'm in charge
whether it's true or not.)
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!
> Running, in and of itself, is not going to take any weight off you. If
> you run and maintain a low-calorie diet, then you will lose weight
> faster than if you run without watching your diet. I've read that you
> have to run upwards of 25 miles/week to lose weight solely from running
> and my experience has borne that out.
This was not my experience, but then there were more than one variable
at play. I was not counting calories initially, but I had changed the
*foods* that I ate. In that way, I dropped better than 25+ pounds (10+%
of my starting weight) in four months starting out with a couch-to-10k
plan and ending that period running about 20 miles a week.
Flipping back in my running log, I see that I started August 2005 at
219lbs and ended it at 210lbs. During that time I ran a grand total of
66.9 miles. My runs during that period ran from 3 to 6 miles and my
biggest week was 20 miles and my smallest was 10.
To the OP, I hope my anecdote helps.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
runsrealfast
seatos...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Running wont burn very many calories but it will suppress your
> appetite. You will get your high from running instead of eating.
I thought people that got high had the munchies
John ~ just had to make the joke
Kaz Kylheku
> John B. <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ih4553 wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Here's my situation... I'm 28 yrs old, 6'2" tall and about 215lbs. I
> >> would like to get down to around 190 lbs, which I feel would be close
> >> to my ideal weight.
>
> That's about where I am now (6'2" and 190-) and, yeah, it's a good
> weight.
190 is a good weight for 6'2" if you are packing a good 25 pounds of
extra muscle from lifting weights. Otherwise, you're substantially
overweight at 190.
runsrealfast
ih4553 wrote:
> I've heard that the best weight loss is acheived in the running AFTER
> 15 minutes of continuous running, is that true?
If you never had run before you will lose some weight. The question
becomes how fast do you want to lose it? (which I believe was mentioned
b/f). Its a simple equation calories in must less than calories out.
The greater the difference the more weight will be lost. I once read
that for every 3000 calories burned you will lose 1 pound. Can you
really believe everything you read thought?
> How much should I be running daily to slowly obtain my ideal weight?
For me personaly i find that if I run slowly between 40-50 minutes I
find that I have the best results from a weight loss perspective.
> Should I be running daily?
Depends. If you can run enough to burn the calories you would like and
recover every day before your next run then yeah. Otherwise no.
You can do other activities, like bike riding (I know the weather is
turning cold so this may not work). Maybe on your off days you could
walk with your significat other or kids if applicable. If weight loss
is the goal, maybe even a little extra yard work on those days off
would help.
> Once I achieve my ideal weight, how much should I run to maintain it?
see above
> Is it better to run on a treadmill or outside, or maybe alternate?
its personal. I would have to shoot myself running on a treadmill
everyday, but some people can do it.
runsrealfast
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 190 is a good weight for 6'2" if you are packing a good 25 pounds of
> extra muscle from lifting weights. Otherwise, you're substantially
> overweight at 190.
agreed. I am 5'11'' and feel I am best at 179 (will admit I'm not
there).
John
News User
> 190 is a good weight for 6'2" if you are packing a good 25 pounds of
> extra muscle from lifting weights. Otherwise, you're substantially
> overweight at 190.
Says who? I'm 6"2' and very broad shoulders (think football player
build). Right now I'm 245 and at 190 I'd look like an anorexic. I'm
shooting for 200-220.
Doug Freese
<seatos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158178328....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
You must be trolling!
> Running wont burn very many calories
I still like round numbers albeit some percent off a 100 Kcal a mile. if
you burn off more than you input, you lose weight. Fairly straight
forward.
> but it will suppress your appetite.
Speak for yourself, I can eat a ton of food, and often do, after a race
and pack of fellow runners that do the same. Your appetite suppression
is more of those that are new to the sport.
> You will get your high from running instead of eating.
I have been running for 20 years I haven't any idea what a "runners
high" is. Maybe that's why I eat a lot after a run, I missed the high.
Can I buy some at a sports store?
> The running high is better than the food high.
I don't know, I sure do enjoy a great big breakfast after a nice long
moring run. I won't call it a high but damn pleasing
Any other myths or misconceptions you want to offer?
-Doug
Miss Anne Thrope
are in our society?
seatos...@yahoo.com
psychological changes that occur when you start doing intense exercise.
For a lot of sedentary people, food is the only thing that lifts their
mood. You eat a lot after a race but you would not slip into a mild
depression if you denied yourself this food. You dont feel the high
from running because running has lifted your mood in general. It has
given you some structure and things seem more pleasant relative to the
terrible pain of running.
userfriendly
: if you run 15 minutes a day.
:
: > How much should I be running daily to slowly obtain my ideal weight?
: > Should I be running daily?
:
: Depends on how quickly you want to lose weight.
:
: At 215lb, you burn about 150 calories per mile of running.
:
: If you run 2 miles, three times a week, that's about 900 calories per
week, so
: it would take 4 weeks to lose 1lb (about 3500 calories/lb weight loss), or
2
: years to get to your "ideal weight".
Forget that. I'm assuming that you are also eating less and/or more
healthily. Don't be discouraged. High-mileage runners sometimes forget
what life is like for the rest of us.
I was 240 pds at 5'11". I began with eating less fat, less overall, etc. I
began to lose weight. I hit a stopping point where I couldn't lose weight,
so I began running. VERY LITTLE running. And it got me back to losing
weight. I hit my ideal weight without EVER running over 2 miles at a time.
Yeah, I now run more, but don't be discouraged. YOu can do it!
userfriendly
news:Gc0Og.9$q...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
:
: <seatos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:1158178328....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
:
: You must be trolling!
:
: > Running wont burn very many calories
: I still like round numbers albeit some percent off a 100 Kcal a mile. if
: you burn off more than you input, you lose weight. Fairly straight
: forward.
:
: > but it will suppress your appetite.
:
: Speak for yourself, I can eat a ton of food, and often do, after a race
: and pack of fellow runners that do the same. Your appetite suppression
: is more of those that are new to the sport.
Uh, Doug...the OT IS new to the sport.
:
: > You will get your high from running instead of eating.
:
: I have been running for 20 years I haven't any idea what a "runners
: high" is. Maybe that's why I eat a lot after a run, I missed the high.
: Can I buy some at a sports store?
I've had the high more than once and love it.
:
:
: > The running high is better than the food high.
:
:
Donovan Rebbechi
>: However, it's also a moot point, since you're not going to lose much
> weight
>: if you run 15 minutes a day.
>:
>: > How much should I be running daily to slowly obtain my ideal weight?
>: > Should I be running daily?
>:
>: Depends on how quickly you want to lose weight.
>:
>: At 215lb, you burn about 150 calories per mile of running.
>:
>: If you run 2 miles, three times a week, that's about 900 calories per
> week, so
>: it would take 4 weeks to lose 1lb (about 3500 calories/lb weight loss), or
> 2
>: years to get to your "ideal weight".
>
> Forget that. I'm assuming that you are also eating less and/or more
> healthily. Don't be discouraged. High-mileage runners sometimes forget
> what life is like for the rest of us.
Actually, I agree with you. The point I'm trying to make is that a modest
amount of running isn't going to bring about rapid weight loss all by itself.
He's really going to need to back it up with dieting, and a bit of non impact
exercise wouldn't hurt either, at least until he is able to run reasonable
mileage (if he attempted 70mpw now, he would be injured faster than you can
say "injured")
Donovan Rebbechi
> I've had the high more than once and love it.
I'm pretty sure seatosummit has had "the high" more than once too -- but in
his case, I suspect it doesn't have much to do with running.
Doug Freese
<seatos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158200299.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> You started running 20 yrs ago so you obviously forgot the
> psychological changes that occur when you start doing intense
> exercise.
I agree that appetite suppression is mostly a beginners problem.
> For a lot of sedentary people, food is the only thing that lifts their
> mood.
maybe for some, for others it's sex, booze, porno movies, TV, being a
transvestite, etc.
> You eat a lot after a race but you would not slip into a mild
> depression if you denied yourself this food.
I don't know about that, I get damn grumpy. Aside from my personal
gluttony, for proper recovery you should get food, primarily carbs into
your system within 15 minutes of finishing a race or long run to enhance
recovery.
> You dont feel the high
> from running because running has lifted your mood in general. It has
> given you some structure and things seem more pleasant
I agree, in general I'm happy camper but no highs since I some weed many
years ago. Maybe the cannabis stunted high gene. Any other ex pot heads
now too numb to get a runners high? I see a study in the making.
> relative to the terrible pain of running.
From past posts about your training, your pain suggests you are doing
too much, too soon and/or too quickly for your current physical
condition and body attributes. Running is not like football where pain
is part of the game. I won't deny there can be some pain/discomfort at
the end of a race. OTOH, the goal is to train pain free and hopefully
not feel like shit at the end of a race.
Once you identify the source of your pain and fix it, you will discover
a delightful pain free sport.
-DF
rick++
I recommend getting used to exercise first
(without eating any extra food), then ease into
calorie reduction later, if necessary.
Many fat people have so inefficient exercise
metabolisms they find they start losing wieght
IF THEY AVOID EATING MORE than pre-exercise.
Guest
I agree with you regarding the increasing appetite with increasing run
distance.
I am relatively new to running (a little more than a year) and up to 30+ mpw
now.
I had to double the quantity of the same foods that I have been eating to
sustain my weight since I crossed 20 mpw.
runsrealfast
football player eh?
TO is 6'3 and listed at 224. he's huge
Antonio Bryant(49ers) is 6'2 and listed at 188
Chad Johnson (bengals) 6'1 193
Javon Walker (broncos) 6'3 209
Marvin Harrison(colts)6'00 185
Nate Burleson(seahawks) 6'0 192
remember those guys are professional athletes. I don't think 10 pounds
less than 200 is to small.
userfriendly
news:slrneghkm7...@panix2.panix.com...
Thanks for the clarification! Hopefully, the OT's running isn't in a closed
system, but is being supplemented in a variety of healthy ways.
:
: Cheers,
userfriendly
:
: <seatos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:1158200299.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
: > You started running 20 yrs ago so you obviously forgot the
: > psychological changes that occur when you start doing intense
: > exercise.
:
: I agree that appetite suppression is mostly a beginners problem.
:
: > For a lot of sedentary people, food is the only thing that lifts their
: > mood.
:
: maybe for some, for others it's sex, booze, porno movies, TV, being a
: transvestite, etc.
:
: > You eat a lot after a race but you would not slip into a mild
: > depression if you denied yourself this food.
:
: I don't know about that, I get damn grumpy. Aside from my personal
: gluttony, for proper recovery you should get food, primarily carbs into
: your system within 15 minutes of finishing a race or long run to enhance
: recovery.
:
:
: > You dont feel the high
: > from running because running has lifted your mood in general. It has
: > given you some structure and things seem more pleasant
:
: I agree, in general I'm happy camper but no highs since I some weed many
: years ago. Maybe the cannabis stunted high gene. Any other ex pot heads
: now too numb to get a runners high? I see a study in the making.
I'd be the anomoly in the study. I used to be pothead and yet I get
runner's high. Not always, though. It usually takes a hard effort and/or a
distance run.
:
:
: > relative to the terrible pain of running.
:
:
:
:
userfriendly
: On 2006-09-14, userfriendly <youserf...@google.net> wrote:
:
: > I've had the high more than once and love it.
:
: I'm pretty sure seatosummit has had "the high" more than once too -- but
in
: his case, I suspect it doesn't have much to do with running.
So I'm not the only one who thought that about him!
:
: Cheers,
userfriendly
news:1158242877.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
:I wouldnt diet and start running at the same time.
I think the problem is with the definition of "diet." If diet means a
change in eating involving sacrifice that can only be sustained in the short
term, I wouldn't diet at all. Instead, I'd look for long-term lifestyle
change strategies.
To begin with, much less fat in the diet. No eating anything at least 3
hours before bedtime. Less refined carbs and more complex carbs. Lean
protein. 5 small meals per day vs. 3 huge ones. No skipping breakfast.
Choosing to get rid of cokes- why drink your calories? I doesn't satisfy.
More fruits and vegetables.
And then, as exercise increases and weight comes off, the eating plan can be
tweaked, but sustained over the long haul.
- Former Fatty
Craig Pennington
> I wouldnt diet and start running at the same time.
I wouldn't count calories and start running at the same time. I would
(well, I did) change the *kinds* of foods that you eat during regular
meals and snacks and reserve a time for eating out or "must have" foods
that are counter-productive if eaten frequently.
> I recommend getting used to exercise first
> (without eating any extra food), then ease into
> calorie reduction later, if necessary.
Diet is not exclusively about calories (though weight loss is, to a
first-order approximation.) The quality of the food you eat is important
to general well being and, for me, has a positive impact on energy
level; whereas calorie reduction will often have a moderate to strong
negative impact on my energy level.
> Many fat people have so inefficient exercise
> metabolisms they find they start losing wieght
> IF THEY AVOID EATING MORE than pre-exercise.
As I said earlier in the thread, you should never let yourself get to
the "damn, I'm *really* hungry" stage. Eat enough real food (I'm not
talking celery, unless you actually like it) so that you are never
really uncomfortable.
Donovan Rebbechi
Not sure what you mean about "inefficient exercise metabolism". Everyone's
metabolism works in essentially the same way. Carbs and fats are generally
fully digested. The energy of 1gm of glucose doesn't depend on the individual.
It's true that fat people are moving more weight around, so they can
potentially burn a lot of calories per unit movement in weight bearing
exercise. Problem is, until they're trained, their VO2 is quite low, so they
can't sustain much of a burn rate. They might burn a lot per mile, but if
they are doing 15 minutes per mile, and can only run 10 minutes per workout,
it doesn't help them that much.
Published results tend to converge on a combination of diet and exercise being
most effective for short to mid term weight loss (1 year or so window)
BE
2) drink vegetable juices (also OK to drink no-sugar-added pure juices like
lemon or cranberry)
3) water yourself often
Eat sensible, wholesome food. Whole grain bread, fresh veggies, salads with
balsamic vinegar, small portions of meat. Eat fish often. Get some flax seed
into yourself.
Do the running. Don't forget 20 minutes or more of serious stretching after
running.
The pounds will melt away + you'll feel great.
Be
Dominic Shields
Have your body fat percentage measured, then you'll know for sure.
Craig Pennington
> News User wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> > 190 is a good weight for 6'2" if you are packing a good 25 pounds of
>> > extra muscle from lifting weights. Otherwise, you're substantially
>> > overweight at 190.
>> Says who? I'm 6"2' and very broad shoulders (think football player
>> build). Right now I'm 245 and at 190 I'd look like an anorexic. I'm
>> shooting for 200-220.
> football player eh?
> TO is 6'3 and listed at 224. he's huge
> Antonio Bryant(49ers) is 6'2 and listed at 188
> Chad Johnson (bengals) 6'1 193
> Javon Walker (broncos) 6'3 209
> Marvin Harrison(colts)6'00 185
> Nate Burleson(seahawks) 6'0 192
Why all wide receivers? Surely you could have included a kicker or two.
An interesting google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Height%3A+6-2%22+players+site%3Awww.nfl.com&btnG=Search
I see nobody under 200 on the first page. Mean weight: 220.9, Median
weight: 222. TO is representative as opposed to huge (though he may be
well muscled compared to others, I wouldn't know.)
> remember those guys are professional athletes.
Cherry-picked to make your point.
For comparison to your wide receivers, here are some (P to W -- I was
going to type in just the "P"s based on my name, but I just kept going)
NFL linebackers who are all 6'2" and their posted weights:
Polk, Carlos 262
Polk, DaShon 245
Pollack, David 255
Rainer, Wali 237
Reese, Ike 222
Roper, Dedrick 245
Ruud, Barrett 241
Scanlon, Rich 249
Scott, Bart 240
Seward, Adam 248
Shanle, Scott 245
Singleton, Alshermond 250
Sirmon, Peter 237
Smith, Daryl 242
Smith, Derek M 237
Smith, Raonall 245
Smith, Tyson 237
Spikes, Takeo 242
Stamer, Josh 238
Stills, Gary 250
Taylor, Ben 238
Thomas, Adalius 270
Thomas, Dontarrious 241
Thomas, Pat 243
Thompson, Chaun 249
Thornton, David 225
Torbor, Reggie 250
Wilkins, Marcus 231
Williams, Leon 238
Wilson, Rod 230
Wong, Kailee 246
Woods, LeVar 241
(source:<http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/237433>, hand entered.)
Mean: 242.78, Median: 242
> I don't think 10 pounds less than 200 is to small.
He didn't say that 190 was too small. He was responding to the
trollfully ridiculous claim that 190 pounds at 6'2" was "substantially
overweight" unless the person was packing 25 pounds of "extra muscle."
He said that *he* would look anorexic at that weight (which is probably
an overstatement.) The claim to which he was responding is obviously
bullshit as stated.
I think that for the majority of 6'2" people, 190lbs is probably a fine
target weight. *I* plan on dropping another 10lbs over the next 4-5
months and holding there as part of a plan to run a marathon in March,
but I plan on returning to between 190-195 when that's done (unless some
other running goal comes up -- which it likely will.)
I was a linebacker, which is a position pretty evenly split between
skill and line in size. I look thin at 190, but not anorexic. I estimate
my body fat to be somewhere between 11% and 17% (I'm not going to bother
having it tested professionally, I don't care that much -- you can see
my ribs, my backbone, my abs; prominent veins in my arms, legs and at my
temples.) Most of any future weight loss will be muscle, but I am trying
to minimize that with some weightlifting and a 20/45/35 fat/carb/protein
(+/- 5% on any number) diet.
So, in conclusion for the average 6'2" tall person, 190 is probably a
fine weight to be.
runsrealfast
Dude your asking Runners about weight loss. I'll bet not one person in
this group looks like and NFL linebacker, heck even a high school
linebacker. WR is more closer to the build of a runner than any other
position.
John
News User
>> Says who? I'm 6"2' and very broad shoulders (think football player
>> build). Right now I'm 245 and at 190 I'd look like an anorexic. I'm
>> shooting for 200-220.
>
> Have your body fat percentage measured, then you'll know for sure.
According to our scale it's 28-30%, 48% Water. That means out of my 250
lbs, 120 lbs is water, 75 lbs is fat leaving 55 lbs for muscle, organs,
and bones. Something's off there, but close enough for me.
All I know is since I started running my BF % has gone down and so has
my weight. Did some sensible diet adjustments and is working fine.
It's not going to happen overnight, but by burning at least 450 calories
3-4x a week it's working. I figure that's like subtracting a meal a day.
Still don't think 190 is going to look right on me.
News User
> To begin with, much less fat in the diet. No eating anything at least 3
Depends on the goal - if you want to loose weight, look at the total
calories. You could probably loose weight eating 10 tbs (150 cal * 10=
1500 cals) of Canola Oil a day. Problem is you would not feel full at
all. Granted, your arteries would probably be hard as a rock, but you
would loose weight.
What you have to do is eat things that are bulky (fruit, veggies, etc)
and contain calories. That way you eat and still feel full.
But a well rounded diet is what it's all about - 10 tbs of oil won't
make you feel full, but:
a bowl of oatmeal and banana for b-fast
sensible sandwich and apple for lunch
steak and broccoli with a banana for dinner
and some dried fruit along the way during the day
sure will and it probably has about the same calories of those 10 tbs of
oil.
Kaz Kylheku
> Dominic Shields wrote:
>
> >> Says who? I'm 6"2' and very broad shoulders (think football player
> >> build). Right now I'm 245 and at 190 I'd look like an anorexic. I'm
> >> shooting for 200-220.
> >
> > Have your body fat percentage measured, then you'll know for sure.
> According to our scale it's 28-30%, 48% Water. That means out of my 250
> lbs, 120 lbs is water, 75 lbs is fat leaving 55 lbs for muscle, organs,
> and bones. Something's off there, but close enough for me.
So your lean mass is 175. If you could keep that lean mass and cut down
to 190 pounds, you would not look anorexic. You'd be as muscular as you
are now, and quite ripped at 7% BF.
Dominic Shields
Aesthetic judgements aren't really anything anyone else can comment on
but what about taking the measurement again when you are 200 pounds?
The most widely quoted body fat percentage rating chart from the
American Council On Exercise rates 14 to 17% as "Athletic" and 18 to
25% as "Acceptable" for men.
Doug Freese
"Dominic Shields" <d...@dshields.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hnlkg255i8ouv7pl9...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:25:56 -0400, News User
> <sneaker...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Still don't think 190 is going to look right on me.
>
> Aesthetic judgements aren't really anything anyone else can comment on
True but I think with the population growing fatter, the athletic person
tends to look even more out of the norm. I'm about 175, 6'1" and
shrinking, with about 10-12% body fat Non running people often think
I'm too thin but at race I look average. We battle perceptions from
within and without. At my annual vet check the doc thinks I'm a
marvelous specimen of human anatomy. ;)
> but what about taking the measurement again when you are 200 pounds?
> The most widely quoted body fat percentage rating chart from the
> American Council On Exercise rates 14 to 17% as "Athletic" and 18 to
> 25% as "Acceptable" for men.
http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm
shows for men - essential as 2-4%, athletes 6-13, fitness 14-17% and
acceptable as 18-25%. Any reason you moved the "athletic" up a notch? ;)
-Doug
Craig Pennington
[snip]
> Dude your asking Runners about weight loss. I'll bet not one person in
> this group looks like and NFL linebacker, heck even a high school
> linebacker. WR is more closer to the build of a runner than any other
> position.
But the poster to whom you responded said that he was built like a
football player -- I suspect people who self-identify intend to imply a
large-frame style position. Now, I actually think you were correct in
the gist of your response -- 190 at 6'2" is not overly thin for even the
majority of large-framed individuals. Prior to my lifestyle change, I was
of a similar opinion to the poster, but I am quite happy with how I look
now. I may even be happy lower, but I have no plans to drop (much) below
180 (unless I improve enough to start taking home some money -- not
bloody likely.)
One thing I have noticed aestheticly is that, being over 40, my skin
elasticity is dropping. As Mark Hutchinson noted in one of his reports,
a low BMI plus reduced skin elasticity makes a body look old. I look
much younger at 200 than I do at 190, and I suspect that I'll look older
still at 180.
Now if the thread title had been "Weight loss for running," then Kaz's
original comment would not have been unreasonable (though I would think
it bit of an overstatement.)
BTW -- curse you for pointing me at the NFL data -- I just can't help
mucking with the numbers ;-)
Random NFL weight stats:
* The lowest BMI in the NFL is WR Derek Lewis at 6'2" and 179 coming in
at 23.0.
* The highest BMI in the NFL is Center Nick Cole at 6'0" and 350 coming
in at 47.5 (the next highest is Guard Tony Palmer at 6'1" and 344 coming
in at 45.4.)
* The median BMI in the NFL is 31.0.
* The mean is 31.6.
* There are 22 players in the NFL (<1%) below my BMI of 24.4.
* There are 2082 players in the NFL (98.5%) above my BMI.
* There are 10 players in the NFL at my BMI of 24.4. The only one that is
6'2" is WR Charlie Adams.
Data from 2114 player bios scraped from <http://www.nfl.com/>.
runsrealfast
> BTW -- curse you for pointing me at the NFL data -- I just can't help
> mucking with the numbers ;-)
I know its fun. A thought just occured to me why are we comparing
normal people to NFL players. He only said his build was like a
football player. He could have meant that he looked like a football
player that was retired.
John
Robert Grumbine
ih4553 <ih4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm a beginning runner and I've heard so much from so many people that
>all contridicted itself, so I decided to start looking on the internet,
>which confused me even more...
No doubt the posts here have cleared everything up! To add to the
confusion, my few cents ...
>I've heard that the best weight loss is acheived in the running AFTER
>15 minutes of continuous running, is that true?
Never heard that one. Can't think of any basis on which it might
be true. If anything, your body is less efficient while you're warming
up, so you should be burning more calories early on.
>How much should I be running daily to slowly obtain my ideal weight?
See next
>Should I be running daily?
No.
In getting started on an exercise program the running days are putting
significant _new_ stresses on your body. It will adapt to these stresses
a) over time b) _if and only if_ you give it time to rebuild between
the time you apply the stresses.
Every other day running and walking on the off (of running) days is
a more sustainable approach. Give it 8-12 weeks before worrying about
running more often. Also before increasing the frequency, get stable
with 30 minutes running being comfortable (not as in 'felt like a
nice nap' but something where you're not feeling physically taxed on
the day of the run or the next day).
>Once I achieve my ideal weight, how much should I run to maintain it?
Enough so that basal metabolism + running calories expended =
calories consumed. You can change either side of the equation,
and it makes little difference to the result. Nothing special
about running for the outgo side of the equation -- doing exercise
to burn calories means you can leave the income side of the
equation relatively untouched.
>Is it better to run on a treadmill or outside, or maybe alternate?
Whichever you'll do most regularly. Maybe that's a blend of
methods and routes, maybe one of them only. Depends on the person.
But you don't burn calories by not running.
Some have mentioned, correctly, that the running won't be
peeling major weight off you with great speed. At about 100 cal/mile,
it's 35 miles to the pound of fat. That's a fair amount of mileage.
On the other hand ... running will be doing you good even before
(or without) changing your weight, including:
improving cholesterol figures
reducing heart disease risks
improving bone density
improved memory and mental acuity
delaying onset and slowing progression of arthritis and Alzheimer's
acting as excellent antidepressant
...
In other words, I'd suggest considering the weight aspect a
fringe benefit of the other good health outcomes from regular
exercise. It _is_ there, and the miles do add up over the year.
Even at only 10 miles per week (3-4 runs of 3 miles), you're looking
at about 15 lbs extra lost (if your intake doesn't change). But
a pound a month is hard to get excited about.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Dominic Shields
wrote:
>shows for men - essential as 2-4%, athletes 6-13, fitness 14-17% and
>acceptable as 18-25%. Any reason you moved the "athletic" up a notch? ;)
I think I screwed up writing in a hurry
Doug Freese
No problem, I have done that myself - ask Mark. ;)
-Doug
LSmith
Doug Freese wrote:
>I'm about 175, 6'1" and
> shrinking, with about 10-12% body fat
ever bump it up for a 100 miler? read about DK today and his start (in
about 15 min.) of this 50/50 thing.
· What: Fifty marathons in 50 days in 50 states.
· Total miles: 1,310.
· Total calories burned: 150,000.
· Expected pace: 10:00 to 11:40 per mile; 4 1/2 to 5 hours per
marathon.
· Height/weight: 5-foot-8; 154 pounds.
· Resting heart rate: 39 beats per minute.
· Percent body fat: 4.8 (increased to 8 percent for additional stored
energy in preparation for the Endurance 50).
LSmith
Doug Freese wrote:
>I'm about 175, 6'1" and
> shrinking, with about 10-12% body fat
shinype...@yahoo.com
ih4553 wrote:
> I've heard that the best weight loss is acheived in the running AFTER
> 15 minutes of continuous running, is that true?
When you exercise, there's two types of energy your body draws upon:
readily available glucose, and body fat. Glucose is instant but not
endless energy.... fat is endless energy but not instant. To lose
weight, you want to burn the fat, not just the glucose.
The fat stored in your body is like a log, and for those who are
unconditioned, it doesn't light all that easily. This is very
frustrating for those who want to lose weight. The more unfit you are,
the harder it is to get that fat burning, and the more fat your body
tends to store.
To ignite the fire and burn these fat logs, you need two things: 1)
glucose (think of it as kindling to get your fire started) and 2) air.
A big mistake dieters make is exercising on an empty stomach. Don't do
that!!! Be sure to have a small, carb-rich snack about 30 minutes to an
hour before you run (I like powerbars, but it can be a bowl of cereal,
a half bagel, a banana, or something like that). If you don't have
anything in your stomach, you may have nothing to light your logs and
will quickly find you hit the wall.
Breathing gives you the air to get that fat burning. You need to get
your pace up enough that you can just barely carry on a conversation.
When the fat starts burning, you can tell. Or at least, I can always
tell. Something just kicks in and I suddenly feel like I can go for
hours and hours and hours. This might be why people say the best weight
loss is after 15 minutes... they are feeling that effect.
As your body becomes more and more fit - more and more conditioned - it
learns how to light the fat quicker and reach this state. Fitness and
conditioning come in time. They do not happen overnight, but have to be
earned. Fitness is what makes your body a lean, mean, fat-burning
machine!
> How much should I be running daily to slowly obtain my ideal weight?
Don't think about mileage so much as consistency. And, you needn't run.
I am not running at the moment. I am walking instead, about an hour a
day, 5-6 times a week, 4 miles avg pace about 14:30 per mile. Much
easier to keep consistent when I don't have to worry about injuring
myself again.
> Should I be running daily?
I recommend you exercise daily, or near daily, but walk long most of
those days, and run short just one or two. This will give you the
consistency to achieve fitness faster, and condition your body to
ignite those fat logs and burn them, while reducing the chance of
injury sidelining you before you reach your goal.
Also consider adding weight training to your program. The more muscle
you have, the more fat you burn.
> Is it better to run on a treadmill or outside, or maybe alternate?
I believe it's safer on your knees to run on a treadmill. Not to
mention, you needn't worry about cars hitting you, or ice to slip on.
With that said, I would not exclusively run on a treadmill. It's good
for your joints and legs to get some variety. Treadmill-only runners
often have a hard time running outside.
To guard against injury to your knees, try to stay away from cement
sidewalks. Better to run on asphalt, dirt, or grass.
jen
Robert Grumbine
<shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>ih4553 wrote:
>
>> I've heard that the best weight loss is acheived in the running AFTER
>> 15 minutes of continuous running, is that true?
>
>When you exercise, there's two types of energy your body draws upon:
>readily available glucose, and body fat. Glucose is instant but not
>endless energy.... fat is endless energy but not instant. To lose
>weight, you want to burn the fat, not just the glucose.
Ouch. This is just wrong physiologically. Noakes _Lore of Running_
will give details, as will posts by Sam (marathonman) in this group
over the years.
Weight loss cares about calories burned, not about which substrate
(a keyword to use in the search) is used to provide them. If you
burn a lot from your store of glucose in your exercise, then in its
recovery, your body will replenish the glucose from your fat stores.
If you tax your fat stores, your body will pack up the oversupply
of glucose into more fat.
The one point of merit in the 'fat burning zone' mythology is
that it encourages (accidentally) people to run at the intensity
level (65-75% effort level) that they should be for aerobic benefit.
[snip]
>When the fat starts burning, you can tell. Or at least, I can always
>tell. Something just kicks in and I suddenly feel like I can go for
>hours and hours and hours. This might be why people say the best weight
>loss is after 15 minutes... they are feeling that effect.
Sounds like this is where you've warmed up.
[snip]
>With that said, I would not exclusively run on a treadmill. It's good
>for your joints and legs to get some variety. Treadmill-only runners
>often have a hard time running outside.
It's a transition, but I've never heard of someone who couldn't
make the switch after at most a few runs.
>To guard against injury to your knees, try to stay away from cement
>sidewalks. Better to run on asphalt, dirt, or grass.
Amen.
Notgiven
news:1158944022.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jen - that was a terrific explanation! Very well put - you should write a
book
shinype...@yahoo.com
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <1158944022.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >ih4553 wrote:
> >
> >> I've heard that the best weight loss is acheived in the running AFTER
> >> 15 minutes of continuous running, is that true?
> >
> >When you exercise, there's two types of energy your body draws upon:
> >readily available glucose, and body fat. Glucose is instant but not
> >endless energy.... fat is endless energy but not instant. To lose
> >weight, you want to burn the fat, not just the glucose.
>
> Ouch. This is just wrong physiologically. Noakes _Lore of Running_
> will give details, as will posts by Sam (marathonman) in this group
> over the years.
>
> Weight loss cares about calories burned, not about which substrate
> (a keyword to use in the search) is used to provide them. If you
> burn a lot from your store of glucose in your exercise, then in its
> recovery, your body will replenish the glucose from your fat stores.
> If you tax your fat stores, your body will pack up the oversupply
> of glucose into more fat.
Whaddya you know... you're already fit. :-)
I concede maybe my science is old, since I got that analogy from the
book Fit or Fat. But who cares if it is. It's valuable advice to
someone who's unfit: you need to be patient; the fitter you get, the
more efficiently you'll burn fat; and don't diet so much that you have
no energy to exercise. The last is a very common mistake women in
particular tend to make. (BT, DT).
> The one point of merit in the 'fat burning zone' mythology is
> that it encourages (accidentally) people to run at the intensity
> level (65-75% effort level) that they should be for aerobic benefit.
Yep. And I was having a brain problem when I wrote. I couldn't remember
the word "aerobic" ... isn't that silly?? I meant to say that you need
air to start the burning, and air = aerobic.
Whether physiologically sound or not, I've always personally found the
log-burning analogy a good one to meditate on while I'm walking or
running. Maybe the OP will too.
Hey! I've logged 121 miles since getting my Nike+Sport Kit in August!!
Mostly walking, tho' I confess I jogged probably 10 miles of that
(couldn't help it, the downhills around here are *really* downhill...)
but, my back is doing great. It's feeling better than it has in years
and years. I can even sit all day in a meeting or on a plane, without
being a cripple the next day. woo-hoo... and knock on asphalt. :-)
jen
szabado...@gmail.com
BE,
I've read your post in the Braun Shavers Battery topic, and I would
like to ask you something.
If you still have the Braun Syncro 7505, could you please disassemble
it, and write me the data of the capacitors on the battery side?
One of them on board has blown up :(
Thanks a lot!
Greetings from Hungary!
Szabados Mátyás
Bagpiip
<szabado...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159713339.2...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Greetings from Hungary!
Szabados Mátyás
T.S. dipstick.