miles said...

> Dear Andy
>
> I'd say Ms Ally's problem is that she is just losing weight for the ads
> (i.e. cash), and that she doesn't really care about weight loss for
> herself. Good homemade food- such as is featured on rec.food.cooking ,
> and exercise, will stand her in good stead permanently. Someone should
> tell her about this Google Group (Usenet for you cynical computer
> analysts), and I think she will shred the kilos and stay trim!


miles,

I agree but folks in the lime-light have folks that do that grungework
for them, sifting out all the negative to present them with.

If you were a star would you submit yourself to such negative press that
is routinely served up on usenet?

She stated that she doesn't do any form of exercise other than dancing
(yeah, right!) on Oprah's show.

All the best,

Andy

Michael Archon Sequoia Nielsen > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> BMI doesn't tell you that. BMI tells you that their
>> height or weight changed.
>>
>> BMI is certainly ********. The correlation between
>> fat and (height,weight) tuples is very broad. Telling
>> everyone who is above the BMI calculation that they are
>> fat is a mistake in a ridiculously large proportion
>> of cases. But that's what doctors do.
>
>I am not talking about BMI.

Sorry. You were replying to my "********" about dunk
testing, but you cut out the part about dunk testing.
I "********" about BMI a lot more often so I assumed it
was one of those.

Yes, I agree. Dunk testing and calipers will tell you
that things are progressing.

To a point. Body parts don't progress at the same rate,
and the 3-point and 7-point caliper readings can plateau
even when fat is being lost.

Dunk tanks are more reliable, but not convenient for
most people.

MRIs are totally inconvenient, hideously expensive, and
infallible for this process. Which is why the price
will never come down.

--Blair

"Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
28.19...
> Oh pshaw, on Wed 06 Sep 2006 01:13:47p, MY WORD meant to say...
>
>>
>>
>> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>> 28.19...
>>> Oh pshaw, on Tue 05 Sep 2006 12:39:27p, Andy meant to say...
>>>
>>>> She's still a pear. She hasn't lost 75 lbs. NO FRIGGIN' WAY!
>>>>
>>>> She looks fatter now than she did on the Oprah winfrey show last
>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>> I think she's a fraud. No exercise? It can't be done!!!
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm just sick of her BS Jenny Craig commercials.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't speak about Kirsty, but I'm living proof that exercise is not
>>> essential for weight loss. I've lost 68½ pounds on Weight Watchers
>>> without doing one moment of exercise.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>
>> Me too Wayne. But not because I didn't want to. I'm doing water
>> exercise but it really doesn't help much. I can't do any other kind.
>>
>
> Helen, I had always heard that water exercise was very beneficial. I
> have
> to admit that I've never tried it, though.
>
> Wayne

Oh, it is beneficial for keeping you mobile but If I go by the instructor
who has been running this class for at least 5 years, every day. It
certainly hasn't helped her lose any weight.



--
My Word
in
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
http://www.mompeagram.homestead.com/index.html

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> Helen, I had always heard that water exercise was very beneficial. I have
> to admit that I've never tried it, though.
>
> Wayne

The cardio benefits are huge.
-L.

MY WORD wrote:
>
> Oh, it is beneficial for keeping you mobile but If I go by the instructor
> who has been running this class for at least 5 years, every day. It
> certainly hasn't helped her lose any weight.

Her diet probably compensates for the calories she burns.

-L.

"MY WORD" > wrote

> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote

>> Helen, I had always heard that water exercise was very beneficial. I
>> have
>> to admit that I've never tried it, though.
>
> Oh, it is beneficial for keeping you mobile but If I go by the instructor
> who has been running this class for at least 5 years, every day. It
> certainly hasn't helped her lose any weight.

As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight loss
is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss confirms
it's an issue.

nancy

Nancy Young said...

>
> "MY WORD" > wrote
>
>> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> Helen, I had always heard that water exercise was very beneficial.
>>> I have
>>> to admit that I've never tried it, though.
>>
>> Oh, it is beneficial for keeping you mobile but If I go by the
>> instructor who has been running this class for at least 5 years,
>> every day. It certainly hasn't helped her lose any weight.
>
> As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight
> loss is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss
> confirms it's an issue.
>
> nancy


After my ex's knee surgery, as part of her rehab, we got her a water belt
so when she got in the pool she could "water-cycle" while keeping her
above water from her waist up. Worked wonders for the healing process.

Andy

Nancy Young wrote:

> As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight loss
> is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss confirms
> it's an issue.

Not so. It completely depends on what kind of "swimming" is being
performed. Swimming involves a relatively large number of
different muscles. It can burn up to 1200 calories per hour,
depending. That's a level only trained athletes can sustain for
very long. It would be quite wrong to say that's of no use
in weight loss.

Part of the reason for the confusion I'm sure is the way
"swimming" is often lumped together when there are in fact
many different kinds that involve very different levels of
exertion.

It's as if you tried to lump together walking, jogging, and
sprinting, all in the same category. You can't. They all
involve very different levels of energy expenditure and
need to be classified as such.

--
Reg

"Reg" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight loss
>> is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss confirms
>> it's an issue.
>
> Not so. It completely depends on what kind of "swimming" is being
> performed.

Actually, it had something to do with the temperature of the water
and the body's conservation of fat.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

> "Reg" > wrote
>
>
>>Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight loss
>>>is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss confirms
>>>it's an issue.
>>
>>Not so. It completely depends on what kind of "swimming" is being
>>performed.
>
>
> Actually, it had something to do with the temperature of the water
> and the body's conservation of fat.


That's simple enough. You googled some bogus information.

--
Reg

Oh pshaw, on Mon 11 Sep 2006 04:03:26p, MY WORD meant to say...

> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> 28.19...
>> Oh pshaw, on Wed 06 Sep 2006 01:13:47p, MY WORD meant to say...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> 28.19...
>>>> Oh pshaw, on Tue 05 Sep 2006 12:39:27p, Andy meant to say...
>>>>
>>>>> She's still a pear. She hasn't lost 75 lbs. NO FRIGGIN' WAY!
>>>>>
>>>>> She looks fatter now than she did on the Oprah winfrey show last
>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think she's a fraud. No exercise? It can't be done!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I'm just sick of her BS Jenny Craig commercials.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't speak about Kirsty, but I'm living proof that exercise is not
>>>> essential for weight loss. I've lost 68½ pounds on Weight Watchers
>>>> without doing one moment of exercise.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>
>>> Me too Wayne. But not because I didn't want to. I'm doing water
>>> exercise but it really doesn't help much. I can't do any other kind.
>>>
>>
>> Helen, I had always heard that water exercise was very beneficial. I
>> have to admit that I've never tried it, though.
>>
>> Wayne
>
> Oh, it is beneficial for keeping you mobile but If I go by the instructor
> who has been running this class for at least 5 years, every day. It
> certainly hasn't helped her lose any weight.

I suspect that water exercise alone will not lead to much weight loss. It
probably needs to be combined with a sensible reduced calorie diet.

--
Wayne Boatwright
__________________________________________________

Everything in our favor was against us.

Oh pshaw, on Mon 11 Sep 2006 05:21:20p, Andy meant to say...

> Nancy Young said...
>
>>
>> "MY WORD" > wrote
>>
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> Helen, I had always heard that water exercise was very beneficial.
>>>> I have
>>>> to admit that I've never tried it, though.
>>>
>>> Oh, it is beneficial for keeping you mobile but If I go by the
>>> instructor who has been running this class for at least 5 years,
>>> every day. It certainly hasn't helped her lose any weight.
>>
>> As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight
>> loss is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss
>> confirms it's an issue.
>>
>> nancy
>
>
> After my ex's knee surgery, as part of her rehab, we got her a water belt
> so when she got in the pool she could "water-cycle" while keeping her
> above water from her waist up. Worked wonders for the healing process.
>
> Andy

My boss has been going to water exercise therapy following a torn hamstring
and other damage. It's had an amazing effect on her healing.

--
Wayne Boatwright
__________________________________________________

Everything in our favor was against us.

Oh pshaw, on Mon 11 Sep 2006 06:05:45p, Nancy Young meant to say...

>
> "Reg" > wrote
>
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight loss
>>> is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss
confirms
>>> it's an issue.
>>
>> Not so. It completely depends on what kind of "swimming" is being
>> performed.
>
> Actually, it had something to do with the temperature of the water
> and the body's conservation of fat.
>
> nancy
>
>

Sometimes the temperature of pool water here in AZ is almost enough to melt
fat. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright
__________________________________________________

Everything in our favor was against us.

"Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote

> Oh pshaw, on Mon 11 Sep 2006 06:05:45p, Nancy Young meant to say...

>> Actually, it had something to do with the temperature of the water
>> and the body's conservation of fat.

> Sometimes the temperature of pool water here in AZ is almost enough to
> melt
> fat. :-)

Heh, I believe it. When we have a really hot spell (as we did this year, of
course),
the water reaches body temp in the pool. Kinda takes the fun out of
swimming
to cool off.

nancy (just closed our pool today)

MY WORD wrote:

>
> Oh, it is beneficial for keeping you mobile but If I go by the instructor
> who has been running this class for at least 5 years, every day. It
> certainly hasn't helped her lose any weight.
>

They have aquafit classes at our Y, and from the looks of the women in the
class it hasn't done anything for any of them. At least it gets them out of
the house and gives them a chance to socialize.

Reg wrote:

> Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight loss
> > is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss confirms
> > it's an issue.
>
> Not so. It completely depends on what kind of "swimming" is being
> performed. Swimming involves a relatively large number of
> different muscles. It can burn up to 1200 calories per hour,

the tracking program at our Y used to credit me for about 396 calories for
swimming 1 mile (30 minutes) I got almost as much credit for walking the same
amount of time. Horseback riding was good for 906.

> depending. That's a level only trained athletes can sustain for
> very long. It would be quite wrong to say that's of no use
> in weight loss.

I used to find that I could lose about a pound per week by swimming, but I was
doing 1000 meters 3 times a week and a mile twice a week. That was a lot of
swimming, and it's really boring. As soon as the weather warmed up I started
riding my bike more. I get close to 1000 calories per hour credited for
cycling, and it is a lot less boring.

>
>
> Part of the reason for the confusion I'm sure is the way
> "swimming" is often lumped together when there are in fact
> many different kinds that involve very different levels of
> exertion.

Aquafit classes look like they are designed not to exhaust people who are way
out of shape. The classes I going on involve bouncing or stepping in water
and sometimes flexing arms with Nerf weights. It is not as strenuous as
swimming. When I am finished swimming a mile I am physically tired and as soon
as I get out of the water I feel very warm from muscle heat.

Dave Smith > wrote:
>Reg wrote:
>> Not so. It completely depends on what kind of "swimming" is being
>> performed. Swimming involves a relatively large number of
>> different muscles. It can burn up to 1200 calories per hour,
>
>the tracking program at our Y used to credit me for about 396 calories for
>swimming 1 mile (30 minutes) I got almost as much credit for walking the same
>amount of time.

If you're swimming at a competitive pace, maybe it's worth
1200 cal/hr. Average folks slapping the pool for a few
laps is closer to walking.

>Horseback riding was good for 906.

Only if they were crediting the horse!

>I used to find that I could lose about a pound per week by swimming, but I was
>doing 1000 meters 3 times a week and a mile twice a week. That was a lot of
>swimming, and it's really boring. As soon as the weather warmed up I started
>riding my bike more. I get close to 1000 calories per hour credited for
>cycling, and it is a lot less boring.

To get that 1000 calories, you have to go 20 mph for the
whole hour. I think the Y does some grade inflation to
make people feel better, because very few people I pass
on my bike are going anywhere near 20 mph.

--Blair

Nancy Young wrote:
> Actually, it had something to do with the temperature of the water
> and the body's conservation of fat.
>
> nancy

Well, it's definitely not true. Losing weight is a matter of consuming
less calories than you burn. Swimming burns calories - certainly more
than just sitting around, even if all you are doing is dog paddling.

I lost 45lbs in my 20's and my main form of exercise was swimming, and
when I swam in HS, I had to eat a ton of food to keep the energy I
needed. It's like any other exercise.

-L.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>>Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight loss
>>>is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss confirms
>>>it's an issue.
>>
>>Not so. It completely depends on what kind of "swimming" is being
>>performed. Swimming involves a relatively large number of
>>different muscles. It can burn up to 1200 calories per hour,
>
>
> the tracking program at our Y used to credit me for about 396 calories for
> swimming 1 mile (30 minutes) I got almost as much credit for walking the same
> amount of time.

2 x 396 = 792 calories per hour. For walking? Only if you weigh
about 1000 pounds and really push hard

Your numbers are way off. Not a big surprise. You're gauging
your exertion level at a particular rate "because the Y says
so".

You need to measure it directly. I use a Polar heart rate
monitor/transmitter. It has an ECG electrode that goes around
the chest which transmits heart rate data to the watch
unit. The data gets captured during the session then gets
downloaded from the watch to a computer... then into
a relational database for calculations and historical
tracking.

From this I can calculate the percent of maximum heart rate
versus time which translates directly to calorie consumption
figures.


> Horseback riding was good for 906.

<LOL>

For the horse, maybe. Was he walking or running?

Maybe we can modify my electrode strap. We'll hook him up
and find out for sure.

>
>>depending. That's a level only trained athletes can sustain for
>>very long. It would be quite wrong to say that's of no use
>>in weight loss.
>
>
> I used to find that I could lose about a pound per week by swimming, but I was
> doing 1000 meters 3 times a week and a mile twice a week. That was a lot of
> swimming, and it's really boring. As soon as the weather warmed up I started
> riding my bike more. I get close to 1000 calories per hour credited for
> cycling, and it is a lot less boring.
>

I did a two hour ocean swim today alongside some really frisky
bottleneck dolphins. Not boring at all.

I do use a stationary recumbent bike in bad weather, though.
I used to ride competitively (triathlons and criterion races,
mostly) but I usually stay off the road now. Too dangerous
for my tastes. Too many crazy drivers.

Running is great too, though my joints can stand less and
less of it the older I get.


>>
>>Part of the reason for the confusion I'm sure is the way
>>"swimming" is often lumped together when there are in fact
>>many different kinds that involve very different levels of
>>exertion.
>
>
> Aquafit classes look like they are designed not to exhaust people who are way
> out of shape. The classes I going on involve bouncing or stepping in water
> and sometimes flexing arms with Nerf weights. It is not as strenuous as
> swimming. When I am finished swimming a mile I am physically tired and as soon
> as I get out of the water I feel very warm from muscle heat.
>


That's sort of my point... there are many different types
of water activity. Therapeutic water training like you describe
should never be confused with swimming (and it often is),
especially when it comes to calorie consumption. These
activities have completely different training effects.

--
Reg

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:

> >the tracking program at our Y used to credit me for about 396 calories for
> >swimming 1 mile (30 minutes) I got almost as much credit for walking the same
> >amount of time.
>
> If you're swimming at a competitive pace, maybe it's worth
> 1200 cal/hr. Average folks slapping the pool for a few
> laps is closer to walking.

Right. The program considers the effort. I swim at a fair clip and count it has
hard, but there are several effort levels above that.

> >Horseback riding was good for 906.
>
> Only if they were crediting the horse!

:-) No. That is for the rider. This is equestrian jumping. It is a lot of work
for the rider. It looks easy when it is done right, but it is a lot of physical
work for the rider.

>
> To get that 1000 calories, you have to go 20 mph for the
> whole hour. I think the Y does some grade inflation to
> make people feel better, because very few people I pass
> on my bike are going anywhere near 20 mph.

It is also adjusted for weight. Obviously a person who weights 200 lb exerts a lot
more effort to at a given speed than someone who weights only 100. I usually
maintain 12-15 mph.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "MY WORD" > wrote
>
>> "Wayne Boatwright" <wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> Helen, I had always heard that water exercise was very beneficial. I
>>> have
>>> to admit that I've never tried it, though.
>>
>> Oh, it is beneficial for keeping you mobile but If I go by the
>> instructor who has been running this class for at least 5 years, every
>> day. It certainly hasn't helped her lose any weight.
>
> As I understand it, while water exercise has many benefits, weight loss
> is not one of them. A quick google on swimming and weight loss confirms
> it's an issue.
>
> nancy
>
That's what I thought Nancy. I do it to keep my joints mobile because I
have severe arthritis as well as FMS.

--
My Word
in
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
http://www.mompeagram.homestead.com/index.html

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> >Horseback riding was good for 906.
>
> Only if they were crediting the horse!
>

Depends on the riding.

When I was taking lessons, I would ride for 45 minutes and get off with
rubber tired legs. The next day, my abs and legs would be sore. Trail
riding did not produce this effect unless we did a lot of trotting.

But it's not just a free ride. If you are riding at least somewhat
well, you are maintaing proper posture, using your calf muscles to
squeeze and direct the horse. Your arms are up and away from your body.
Not the same as lifting weights, but just stand for half an hour and
hold your arms up. They will get tired if you aren't used to it. And
your abs should be working with every stride.

It is actually pretty good exercise, and I lost weight steadily back
when I was riding twice a week.

" wrote:

>
> > Only if they were crediting the horse!
> >
>
> Depends on the riding.
>
> When I was taking lessons, I would ride for 45 minutes and get off with
> rubber tired legs. The next day, my abs and legs would be sore. Trail
> riding did not produce this effect unless we did a lot of trotting.
>
> But it's not just a free ride. If you are riding at least somewhat
> well, you are maintaing proper posture, using your calf muscles to
> squeeze and direct the horse. Your arms are up and away from your body.
> Not the same as lifting weights, but just stand for half an hour and
> hold your arms up. They will get tired if you aren't used to it. And
> your abs should be working with every stride.
>
> It is actually pretty good exercise, and I lost weight steadily back
> when I was riding twice a week.

trail riding is more or less just sitting there. and not much work at all
but I was surprised to discover how much work it is to ride hunter jumper.
It is not the horse doing all the work. I find that some horses are a lot
more work than others. I really work up a sweat during lessons. Even on
the coldest days I dress light because the exercise generates so much heat.