Page 10 of 29
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:15 am
by GORDON
GORDON wrote:Also, today I did a full length, flip turn, then made it to the point where the shallow end begins to slope toward the deep end. Maybe... 3rd of the pool? with no breathing. I am going to make the breathless 50 my bitch within a few more months. Fuck you, cardio vascular inefficiency.
Yesterday did the flip-turn and made it half way back down the pool. I'm probably going to give myself a stroke.
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:10 am
by GORDON
GORDON wrote:Yesterday did the flip-turn and made it half way back down the pool. I'm probably going to give myself a stroke.
Did it twice today. And, I'm recovering quickly. I'm ready to turn around and do it again in 60 seconds. That's cool. I almost feel not old, which is nice.
I've been doing 40 minute swim workout since I started, months ago. 20 min/warmup, 10 min/anaerobics, 10 min/sprints. I haven't really been feeling it lately. So I bumped everything by 5 minutes.... yeah, I am feeling it again. 55 minutes in the water. When I am doing sprints I alternate 50/25/25 with 20 seconds rest in between.... for the last 7 minutes I can hear myself grunting in the water with each stroke. I wonder if anyone else can hear it.
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:22 pm
by GORDON
I got an inversion table the other day.... back pains all my life, and I don't know any guys who want to pick me up and stretch out my back for me, and I always wanted to try one, and the sporting goods stores I've been in always have them locked down so you CAN'T try them, so I decided fuck it, bought one for like $120.
So most days I am dealing with some pinched nerve or another, in any given part of my spine. It is so common I usually don't even register it. Just another random pain. So today I was feeling a pinched nerve up near my neck, radiating out to my left scapula. I thought, "Welp, let's see what the inversion table has to say about it." After about 10 minutes being upside down at about negative 45 degrees, I right side upped myself, let the blood drain from my head and my inner ear equalize... and no pain. For the first couple minutes inverted I can actually feel my spine decompressing, my body stretches and I can feel myself getting taller against the padded backboard.
I got this specific one:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003QCI4GG
I built it in about an hour (with my own socket set and allen wrench driver... save yourself lots of work), it'll hold 300 pounds, and feels solid enough at 215 pounds. My only problem, which none of you will have, is that since I have almost no nerve control below my knees, my ankles are extremely weak, and hanging upside down from my ankles puts a ton of negative pressure on them, and it kinda hurts. I throw on some heavy duty workboots to spread the pressure around and make it tolerable. I am pondering some sort of strap around my waist to take off some of that pressure, but whatev.
The only real problem I am having with this thing is that it is kind of big, and doesn't really get very compact when folded up. I don't have a good spot for it. I need to build a huge garage with a workout corner.
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:44 am
by GORDON
Last couple days I have noticed my stretches getting deeper, and easier, and it has been easier to take a breath...
Oh yeah, I am losing my gut and it is taking pressure off my diaphragm when I am doubled over. Nice.
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:48 pm
by TheCatt
Nice!
I biked 100km this morning. I'm toasted... but it went well overall. 3:22 time. The weird thing is calories.
The biking app says I burned about 1750 calories.
Strava says I burned 1,998 calories.
FitBit says I burned 3,219 calories.
All of the 3 apps know my weight. The first 2 know how much "work" I did in watts/kilojoules. The last one knows what my heart-rate was during the 200 minutes.
I've got to think I burned at least 2,000 calories. 10 per minute seems a reasonable minimum for level of effort, and I went pretty hard. But 16 per minute seems high.
I dunno, but I'd bet the world of weight loss would be easier if calorie measurements (both in and out) were more accurate.
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:38 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:FitBit says I burned 3,219 calories.
Where are you wearing a fitbit that it can tell you are bicycling? I ask because there isn't much arm movement for it to detect kinetic motion. Or do you program it like that?
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:41 pm
by GORDON
GORDON wrote:GORDON wrote:Also, today I did a full length, flip turn, then made it to the point where the shallow end begins to slope toward the deep end. Maybe... 3rd of the pool? with no breathing. I am going to make the breathless 50 my bitch within a few more months. Fuck you, cardio vascular inefficiency.
Yesterday did the flip-turn and made it half way back down the pool. I'm probably going to give myself a stroke.
Today: made it to the start of the ramp down, then did 10 more strokes, which took me a few feet past the center of the pool, near as I can tell. There are no distance tick marks on the bottom of the pool. Anyway, I reckon... 40 yards, no breathing, flip turn in the middle.
50 yards goal is in sight.
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:20 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:TheCatt wrote:FitBit says I burned 3,219 calories.
Where are you wearing a fitbit that it can tell you are bicycling? I ask because there isn't much arm movement for it to detect kinetic motion. Or do you program it like that?
It has a heart rate monitor. So it can tell my heart is working, but not what I'm doing. Although, it is smart enough to know I'm not walking/running due to lack of movement.
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:25 pm
by GORDON
I see. So just monitoring heart rate, it can try to estimate how much work you are doing, and how many calories you are burning? Doesn't seem like enough data points to be drawing conclusions.
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:19 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:I see. So just monitoring heart rate, it can try to estimate how much work you are doing, and how many calories you are burning? Doesn't seem like enough data points to be drawing conclusions.
Well... heart rate and weight should be a good estimate of work being done.
Imagine 3 different 200 lb people. One a professional soccer player, one a weekend warrior, and the other fresh off a couch.
Make them all run 3 miles.
Is calories a product of 3 miles by 200 lbs? Or of how efficiently they move those 200 lbs over 3 miles? And what can serve as a proxy for that effort? Heart rate? Why not?
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:00 am
by GORDON
As I understand it, all 3 people would burn the exact same calories to do the exact same work moving the exact same weight from A to B. Some people will just burn those calories easier than others, due to being more fit. The soccer player may not see his heart rate go over a hundred, while the couch tater with 33% body fat might be hammering along at 220, about to die. Fitbit would make a lot of different assumptions about these people, no?
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:22 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:As I understand it, all 3 people would burn the exact same calories to do the exact same work moving the exact same weight from A to B.
No. This just cannot be true.
If you think about work in terms of force over distance, your line of thinking would be true. But that assumes that the efficiency of the person/thing doing the work is the same. I'm arguing that the efficiency of the person matters. The soccer player will be able to do the same EFFECTIVE amount of work (moving 200 lbs 3 miles) than the others more efficiently, therefore burning fewer calories.
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:29 am
by Vince
I agree with Catt, but I think it gets more complicated that the very limited technology of these gadgets can measure. Take The Rock for example. His weight is pretty hefty, but it's damn near all muscle. He published his diet some time back and it was 5 meals a day at over 7k calories. I doubt his heart rate gets as high as the couch potato mentioned above, but his metabolism burns way more calories just sitting than the average mortal.
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:26 am
by Malcolm
He published his diet some time back and it was 5 meals a day at over 7k calories. I doubt his heart rate gets as high as the couch potato mentioned above, but his metabolism burns way more calories just sitting than the average mortal.
He also works out like a fiend in between with a pretty set schedule and diet.
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:48 am
by GORDON
I'm not convinced yet.
Let's narrow it down to something more easily quantifiable... bench pressing a 200 pound barbell, once. It is going to take exactly X amount of work to lift that bar... no more, no less. A body builder is going to do it easily. A noob is going to huff and puff and raise his heart rate, but no more work was done... one machine was just more efficient than the other to do the same work.
I figured that is why you mentioned body weight in your 3-mile-run example... the same weight is being moved from A to B, therefore the exact same work is required.
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:52 am
by GORDON
I want to say I had this exact conversation about 15 years ago with a physical therapy PhD guy, and 1) I never verified any of what he said, and B) I assumed he knew what he was talking about.
And III) My memory isn't perfect and I could be misremembering. But work performed is work performed, some people breathe hard, others don't, but the same work is performed.
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:05 am
by GORDON
We need to "Ask an Expert" before this debate goes too much farther. We've each stated our understanding. We need a judge's ruling.
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:35 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:A body builder is going to do it easily. A noob is going to huff and puff and raise his heart rate, but no more work was done... one machine was just more efficient than the other to do the same work.
You just made my point. The less efficient newb will expend more energy due to being less efficient, despite doing the same amount of work.
I figured that is why you mentioned body weight in your 3-mile-run example... the same weight is being moved from A to B, therefore the exact same work is required.
You're equating result without output. I submit they are different.
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:52 am
by TPRJones
A body builder is going to do it easily. A noob is going to huff and puff and raise his heart rate, but no more work was done...
All that huffing and puffing and struggling and faster heart rate takes more wasted calories than the simple calm lift of the body builder. The question is are those wasted calories enough to be worth measuring or are there few enough that they are hardly more than statistical noise.
Edited By TPRJones on 1454086500
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:53 am
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:GORDON wrote:A body builder is going to do it easily. A noob is going to huff and puff and raise his heart rate, but no more work was done... one machine was just more efficient than the other to do the same work.
You just made my point. The less efficient newb will expend more energy due to being less efficient, despite doing the same amount of work.
I never said anything different... I think. Since you argued I assumed you disagreed.
As for result <> output, I don't know. I think it takes X amount of force to lift a given weight, no more, no less. So this is where we need someone who knows what they are talking about.