T1B

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Can we get an expert (like AP) in here to get a ruling on women's sizes?

Rack

Screw_Michigan wrote:

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Can we get an expert (like AP) in here to get a ruling on women's sizes?

Rack

AP can speak to the Plus sizes.

KC Scott wrote:

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: The Hell you say. I am 43... and I

a.)work out harder
b.)am much stronger

...than 10-15 years ago. It's harder for me to keep my body fat low. That I will grant you. Way harder. :brad:

^^^ No smack intended, but were you an athlete 10-15 years ago or was working out something you picked up later in life?

I know some people who fit that description and they got stronger / leaner beacuse they started working out

Props either way

There is nothing odd about being at your strongest at 43. I would think that many life long athletic types can say this. At 50, that prolly won't be the case anymore.

The things that start going south during your 30s are speed and recuperative powers, especially recuperative powers. :(

Python wrote:The elbow was caused by poor form. No question about it. The others were probably because of too much weight, but one time I pulled something from doing freaking pull ups, for cryin' out loud. The same things I've been doing forever suddenly seem to cause injuries. Guess I need to just back off from everything a little. No more lifting to failure. High reps doesn't help build muscle but I guess I should count myself lucky I don't have any serious health issues. You know, death type stuff.

What you really need to do is stop running. Your knees have been telling you this for awhile.

Take up cycling. Your knees will thank you.

I'm afraid cycling will cause my badonk a donk hole to start hurting after a while. Anybody have any experience with an elliptical? I just don't see anything burning the calories like running, but I know you're right.

Python wrote:I just don't see anything burning the calories like running

Running 10 miles, walking 10 miles, and biking 10 miles all burn about the same number of calories, apart from some variations in how much energy goes into bouncing, and mechanical loss through the bike.

Physics is funny like that.

Of course, the faster you burn those calories dictates the amount of cardio benefit you get, but the calories burned are very close.

Now tell me about the badonk a donk!

Choose your seat wisely.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Can we get an expert (like AP) in here to get a ruling on women's sizes?

Rack

AP can ONLY speak to the Plus sizes.

fixed

Python wrote:Now tell me about the badonk a donk!

For general fitness, these things work pretty well.



They cost about $1,000 but they last forever. I have an earlier model that I've been using for prolly 12 years and the only thing I've had to replace is the monitor (last year).
Your butt can get sore after awhile but the badonk a donk isn't affected at all.

The monitor is set up to display heart rate along with a lot of other useful feedback, like strokes per minute, equivalent meters, calories burned, etc.

Python wrote:I'm afraid cycling will cause my badonk a donk hole to start hurting after a while. Anybody have any experience with an elliptical? I just don't see anything burning the calories like running, but I know you're right.

The elliptical eliminates the impact on your knees you get when running.

Jsc810 wrote:

Python wrote:I just don't see anything burning the calories like running

Get in the swimming pool, my friend.

Try swinging a 5 lb. mattock around for awhile.



You can even get some constructive work done.

The mattock (good word) is kind of the antithesis to a low-impact workout, I'm thinking.

Gets holes dug, though.

Dinsdale wrote:The mattock (good word) is kind of the antithesis to a low-impact workout, I'm thinking.

Gets holes dug, though.

Maybe not "low-impact" but not hard on the knees either.

It'll get your heart rate, respiration and sweat going right quick too.

That's one of those sex machines, right?

Scott, did you go from running to an elliptical? How do you like it?

KC Scott wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
There is nothing odd about being at your strongest at 43. I would think that many life long athletic types can say this. At 50, that prolly won't be the case anymore.

The things that start going south during your 30s are speed and recuperative powers, especially recuperative powers.

Maybe muscle endurance is a better description of what fails
In my case I used 225 on the bench - 3 sets of 6-8 throughout most of my 30s.

When i blew up my shoulder, I was trying to get the 3rd rep of my first set at that weight when I heard (felt) the pop

I believe endurance does drop off a bit too, but, not like speed and recuperative powers. Your shoulder blowing out was probably just plain old wear and tear and possibly bad technique/luck.

And girlie strength.

Dinsdale wrote:

Python wrote:I just don't see anything burning the calories like running

Running 10 miles, walking 10 miles, and biking 10 miles all burn about the same number of calories, apart from some variations in how much energy goes into bouncing, and mechanical loss through the bike.

Physics is funny like that.

Of course, the faster you burn those calories dictates the amount of cardio benefit you get, but the calories burned are very close.

Bullshit.

Walking/running are likely fairly close, calorically speaking over a given distance.

Cycling, not so much.

Cycling is a number of times more efficient. It's not even up for debate. I read somewhere that the most efficient animal at covering a distance is a condor. Give a human a decent bike and he absolutely smokes the condor.

Py, Sorry about your badonk a donk. Perhaps you might consider a recumbent bike.

Python wrote: That's one of those sex machines, right?

Careful.
If Marty sees this he's likely to start posting James Brown videos.

Thanks, dude. 30 minutes running = 30 minutes elliptical?

And why is everybody recommending a bike? You homos just dying to see something up my butt?

smackaholic wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Python wrote:I just don't see anything burning the calories like running

Running 10 miles, walking 10 miles, and biking 10 miles all burn about the same number of calories, apart from some variations in how much energy goes into bouncing, and mechanical loss through the bike.

Physics is funny like that.

Of course, the faster you burn those calories dictates the amount of cardio benefit you get, but the calories burned are very close.

Bullshit.

Walking/running are likely fairly close, calorically speaking over a given distance.

Cycling, not so much.

Cycling is a number of times more efficient. It's not even up for debate. I read somewhere that the most efficient animal at covering a distance is a condor. Give a human a decent bike and he absolutely smokes the condor.

While my statement was (intentionally) grossly oversimplified, discarding a bunch of factors, such as energy absorption of energy in the impact of the foot on the ground and the knees, aerodynamic drag, and entropy in general, which effects the efficiency of each form of movement...

Silly me -- I'd forgotten that those damn liberals in Congress had repealed the laws of thermodynamics :thisiswherethefuckingrolleyesgoes:

But I'm sure you can find a ridiculously erronious "calories burned" chart somewhere that says otherwise -- and those people didn't pass a physics class, either.

Dinsdale wrote:While my statement was (intentionally) grossly oversimplified

Hey...wait a minute.

Dinsdale wrote:
While my statement was (intentionally) grossly oversimplified, discarding a bunch of factors, such as energy absorption of energy in the impact of the foot on the ground and the knees, aerodynamic drag, and entropy in general, which effects the efficiency of each form of movement...

Silly me -- I'd forgotten that those damn liberals in Congress had repealed the laws of thermodynamics :thisiswherethefuckingrolleyesgoes:

But I'm sure you can find a ridiculously erronious "calories burned" chart somewhere that says otherwise -- and those people didn't pass a physics class, either.

Pretty sure that riding a bike is a lot more efficient "thermodynamically" (and even moreso, mechanically) than running. Just a hunch, though. Consider, on flat ground, how far a bike will go (including rolling out) on the energy it takes to make a couple of steps. There's not much friction combined between a bicycle tire and the ground, and the friction in the bearings. Most of the leg energy of a bike rider is converted directly, through the mechanics of levers, sprockets, chains, etc. into translational motion. A runner has a lot of shit going on that doesn't go into forward motion. Think of how much energy is lost every time your foot hits the ground while running. Also, a lot of energy is spent picking up your feet and putting them down. With bicycle pedals you're generating rotational motion, and none of the energy is wasted.

KC Scott wrote:My wife, on the otherhand, says it hurts her knees to use it so she does treadmill instead

Not for nothing, but this really doesn't make any sense. The repeated force of your body weight on your joints is what causes the stress. And it's the same as running outside or on a treadmill. Running should hurt her knees more than an elliptical.

But whatever. If she's pain free doing one thing opposed to the other, that's all that really matters.

P.S. If you want to increase your calories burned, check out an Arc Trainer. It's supposed to be even better for you (less stress on your back because there's less lean involved) than an elliptical.

Mikey wrote: Think of how much energy is lost every time your foot hits the ground while running.

What everyone is not getting. Joint impact from running is bad. Impact from bicycle is much less.

Ask one or a thousand orthopedic bone cutters..is this bad for me ? Yes it is..but go ahead and keep doing it, I need a new BMW this year, and your knees are going to get me there.

Mikey wrote:Pretty sure that riding a bike is a lot more efficient "thermodynamically" (and even moreso, mechanically) than running. Just a hunch, though. Consider, on flat ground, how far a bike will go (including rolling out) on the energy it takes to make a couple of steps. There's not much friction combined between a bicycle tire and the ground, and the friction in the bearings. Most of the leg energy of a bike rider is converted directly, through the mechanics of levers, sprockets, chains, etc. into translational motion. A runner has a lot of shit going on that doesn't go into forward motion. Think of how much energy is lost every time your foot hits the ground while running. Also, a lot of energy is spent picking up your feet and putting them down. With bicycle pedals you're generating rotational motion, and none of the energy is wasted.

I alluded to the various losses in the various forms of going down the road.

But the bottom line still remains, it takes X amount of energy * to move Y amount of distance Z amount of feet, of course multiplied by the efficiency factor, which has so many variables, we really shouldn't even get into it.

Then you get into how your body becomes less efficient the higher your heart rate gets, and it's a nightmare.


So bottom line -- I'll keep riding mybike because I enjoy it and it gets me places.

KC Scott wrote:that was the end of the discussion.

Yes. Isn't it funny how that works?

With regard to the differences. There's a much bigger range of motion. Think... taking larger steps.

And as I said, there's less lean involved, so the stress on your lower back should be diminished. But if it ain't broke, by all means, you certainly don't have to fix it. It'll feel weird at first too. And you probably won't like it. But if you ever want to try something new, I'd give it a whirl.

For me, I have to do different shit or else I get bored. Stairs. Elliptical. Treadmill (or running outside in nice weather.) Arc Trainer.

Python wrote:

That's one of those sex machines, right?

Scott, did you go from running to an elliptical? How do you like it?

Rack the Concept II!

Best machine for an aerobic workout.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:For me, I have to do different shit or else I get bored. Stairs. Elliptical. Treadmill (or running outside in nice weather.) Arc Trainer.

While I'm no personal trainer, and never will be, I forgot to include my biggest point -- do whatever you enjoy the most, provided it doesn't hurt (there's some homosmack buried in there somewhere).

On a bike, you get to see more of the world. In a gym, I suppose you get to see hot chicks, but that's offset by the ucantdoitScottystyle asking you to steam with them.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Rack the Iron Kids Premiere 100!

Best playground for an aerobic workout.

Dude...

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I go WI on business.

Based on the size of the average Wisconsin women I've seen, I understand why he would think size 5 is a kids size

Nice try. Check this out:

http://chartsbin.com/view/562

Fattest States Ranking - 2011
Missouri 11
Kansas 15
Wisconsin 25

How tall is your wife Scott? My wife is 5'7", under 120 lbs and wears a size 6.

Yeah - but she's 94.

And still tight.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: It'll feel weird at first too. And you probably won't like it. But if you ever want to try something new, I'd give it a whirl.

Worst attempt at getting her to do anal. Ever.

KC Scott wrote:My 40 minutes are L14 at 85+ rpm

Um...ok. Does it go to 11?

This thready pretty much makes me not want to get as old as you fucks. I have really shitty knees - at age 35- and I'm likely speeding up the process of knee replacement by a number of years but fuck it. I love to run so I might as well enjoy it while I can.

I'll leave the "banging noise" softball for someone else.

If you don't mind me asking, how much did you pay for that? And if you do mind, how much did you pay for that?

I just started a diet on Monday. Nothing fancy, just counting calories. I set my daily limit at 2000. I had several drinks last night and came as close as I have to going over my limit, but by the time I went to bed, I was still only at 1900 and change. Every other day since Monday, I've been under 1700.

I'm currently 6'4", weight 231 lbs. and I'm shaped like a pear. My goal is to get down to 190. I plan on mixing in some exercise too, eventually, but I'm trying to take baby steps and not get overwhelmed. So far, so good. It's funny how people try to bring you down, though. Everybody seems to think they know the "right" way to lose weight, and it's usually way more complicated than just eating fewer calories than you burn. I showed my sister the rice crackers I bought at Trader Joe's that only have 110 calories per 1 oz. serving and zero fat. She's like "But look at all that sodium."

Incidentally, those little digital scales you can buy at a head shop come in really handy when you're doing any kind of portion control...

I do 3 private 45 min clinical Pilates + powerplate then head to the gym to do 20 min of cardio on the Bike or Eliptical
& on the other days I do 45min of cardio at the gym with extra stretch time
I don't smoke, rarely drink & have a mostly vegetarian diet that includes seafood, no Cows milk based dairy though I do have some goats cheese as goats milk is more compatible with our physiology
I've shed 20kgs in the last year but still want to drop another 15kgs, but I don't stress about it as long as I'm healthy fit & strong that's the most important thing.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Everybody seems to think they know the "right" way to lose weight, and it's usually way more complicated than just eating fewer calories than you burn.

No, it's not. It really is that simple.

Not saying it's easy, or that there are not countless ways to get there, but, it is a simple matter of burning more than you consume.

Dinsdale wrote: While my statement was (intentionally) grossly oversimplified, discarding a bunch of factors, such as energy absorption of energy in the impact of the foot on the ground and the knees, aerodynamic drag, and entropy in general, which effects the efficiency of each form of movement...

Silly me -- I'd forgotten that those damn liberals in Congress had repealed the laws of thermodynamics :thisiswherethefuckingrolleyesgoes:

But I'm sure you can find a ridiculously erronious "calories burned" chart somewhere that says otherwise -- and those people didn't pass a physics class, either.

Nice attempt at a backpedal going to the 'I intentionally grossly oversimplified i't card, but, it doesn't fly.

You said all three methods burned roughly the same amount of calories, as a direct response to Py's comment about burning calories.

BTW, "ridiculously erronious" is almost sig worthy.