WTDWTF Fitness Group
-
@Luhmann said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Karla
No changing room, shower or lockers at work?
Damn even we have those. Bikes can be stored in closed bike shed. It could use a coat of paint ...
Anyway there is this one weirdo who uses this:
-
@DoctorJones
Yeah ... you have a more then average MTB or road bike for that amount.
-
@Luhmann and on those things you'll have a very high centre of gravity. Looking at the video, the guys on them don't look too stable. If they were much cheaper (less than €500), then they'd look potentially interesting, but at that price point it's lunacy.
-
@DoctorJones
The tires also seem totally inadequate for off-road usage ...
-
@Luhmann that's probably intentional, can you imagine how bad the stability would be on a decently rough woodland path? The guys on the video look unstable enough on a flat straight road.
-
@DoctorJones said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
that's probably intentional
Yeah I wouldn't even advise to take it through Brugge city centre ...
-
Huh. I've never seen this thread before.
I'm finally getting back into running after an ankle injury two years ago and a surgery one year ago. I'm four weeks in. The first few weeks were really rough, leaving me completely wiped out for the rest of the day. But this week I've seen some tremendous improvements. Yesterday, I ran 2.5 miles in 22 minutes, and this was my first run where I was limited by my leg muscle endurance and not my heart. Previous runs pushed my heart right up to 200 bpm, this time I never saw anything above 170 and I didn't feel like crap, either.
I have two, possibly three forms of cardiac arrhythmia, and they seem to be in remission already. My resting heartrate is dropping into the low 50's at times, which is good because it means my heart pumps more blood per beat which mostly negates the problems I have when arrhythmia strikes.
Right now, I run the first mile at 8 - 8.5 mph. After that, I alternate between running a quarter and walking (4 mph) an eighth. Now just to get myself to 3 miles without having to take walking breaks, and maybe I won't die of sudden cardiac arrest in my 30's...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I don't feel like tracking numbers, that would be depressing...
You should. I don't know how or why, but it seems that anything you measure and watch improves.
-
@Polygeekery said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I don't feel like tracking numbers, that would be depressing...
You should. I don't know how or why, but it seems that anything you measure and watch improves.
Depends on what you mean by "improves". I've been logging my sleep patterns for half a year and the only thing that's "improved" is that the numbers got larger across the board, and instead of arriving at work at ten it's more like noon.
-
@Luhmann said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
Yeah I wouldn't even advise to take it through Brugge city centre ...
Isn't it undesirable to go through Brugge at all?
-
Anyone here have any opinions on heart monitors? Especially any cheap ones that don't require cloud accounts and monthly subscriptions?
The treadmills' pulse monitors don't work on me, usually reading 70 - 85 when I know I'm somewhere around 180. I have a free phone app that works by covering the camera with your finger, but I can't do that while running, and the abnormalities in my heartbeat can really confuse it sometimes. So I have to resort to taking a manual pulse with a stopwatch to monitor myself.
-
@Polygeekery said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I don't know how or why, but it seems that anything you measure and watch improves
Is that the secret behind all those "penis enlargement" spams we receive?
-
@mott555 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
Anyone here have any opinions on heart monitors? Especially any cheap ones that don't require cloud accounts and monthly subscriptions?
Oh yeah. Thanks for reminding me! The actual reason I resurrected this topic was to mention that I'm getting a fitbit 3 because I need to put $3,000 of purchases on my new credit card within three months in order to get my introductory pointz.
We'll see the effectiveness of the device when it arrives in three weeks...
-
@TimeBandit said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Polygeekery said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I don't know how or why, but it seems that anything you measure and watch improves
Is that the secret behind all those "penis enlargement" spams we receive?
Possibly, but that growth is temporary. Shortly after you close the PornHub tab the gains are lost.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
fitbit
This is what everyone suggests, but the price seems far too high. Seems to me there should be a $10 - 15 device that can give me an instantaneous reading and reduce errors from me miscounting my heartbeats while running. I don't want tracking/Twitter/SMS/email/NetFlix/popcorn maker/etc.
-
@mott555 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
Seems to me there should be a $10 - 15 device that can give me an instantaneous reading
@mott555 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
and reduce errors from me miscounting my heartbeats while running
Oh, well that's probably going to be a wee bit more difficult. Nothing wants to be a dumb monitor, even fucking chest straps...
-
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I'm trying 2:5 fasting currently. This is day 2 of my first two-day period eating nothing. I don't feel hungry at all currently, although it was slightly uncomfortable late last night.
Intermittent fasting should work way better than calorie restriction because your metabolism doesn't seem to really drop down until at least 3 days without food, ergo 2 days should burn the most fat without putting yourself into starvation-mode and stopping the weight loss.I thought the 2:5 was where you ate a restricted amount (600cal for men IIRC) on 2 non-consecutive days and ate normally the rest.
I've not heard of eating nothing for 2 consecutive days.
-
@Polygeekery
Belgium!
-
@mott555
I use a Garmin Edge with chest strap but then again the main selling point is navigation on the bike. And tracking the rides so I can measure my bike-peen on Strava ... I should be doing that ... It compares to Trump's hand size.
-
@loopback0 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I'm trying 2:5 fasting currently. This is day 2 of my first two-day period eating nothing. I don't feel hungry at all currently, although it was slightly uncomfortable late last night.
Intermittent fasting should work way better than calorie restriction because your metabolism doesn't seem to really drop down until at least 3 days without food, ergo 2 days should burn the most fat without putting yourself into starvation-mode and stopping the weight loss.I thought the 2:5 was where you ate a restricted amount (600cal for men IIRC) on 2 non-consecutive days and ate normally the rest.
I've not heard of eating nothing for 2 consecutive days.Yeah, it's not a precise term. The low calorie intake one is intermittent calorie restriction and the nothing one is intermittent fasting. The consecutive/non-consecutive is supposed to be so you don't get the body to drop metabolism (which would affect the rate you can lose fat). From the research I did it looks like you only see a modest drop in metabolism over two days.
Intermittent fasting has better results than restriction: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/73/10/661/1849182?redirectedFrom=fulltext
-
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@loopback0 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I'm trying 2:5 fasting currently. This is day 2 of my first two-day period eating nothing. I don't feel hungry at all currently, although it was slightly uncomfortable late last night.
Intermittent fasting should work way better than calorie restriction because your metabolism doesn't seem to really drop down until at least 3 days without food, ergo 2 days should burn the most fat without putting yourself into starvation-mode and stopping the weight loss.I thought the 2:5 was where you ate a restricted amount (600cal for men IIRC) on 2 non-consecutive days and ate normally the rest.
I've not heard of eating nothing for 2 consecutive days.Yeah, it's not a precise term. The low calorie intake one is intermittent calorie restriction and the nothing one is intermittent fasting. The consecutive/non-consecutive is supposed to be so you don't get the body to drop metabolism (which would affect the rate you can lose fat). From the research I did it looks like you only see a modest drop in metabolism over two days.
Intermittent fasting has better results than restriction: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/73/10/661/1849182?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I like food too much.
-
@Karla said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@loopback0 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I'm trying 2:5 fasting currently. This is day 2 of my first two-day period eating nothing. I don't feel hungry at all currently, although it was slightly uncomfortable late last night.
Intermittent fasting should work way better than calorie restriction because your metabolism doesn't seem to really drop down until at least 3 days without food, ergo 2 days should burn the most fat without putting yourself into starvation-mode and stopping the weight loss.I thought the 2:5 was where you ate a restricted amount (600cal for men IIRC) on 2 non-consecutive days and ate normally the rest.
I've not heard of eating nothing for 2 consecutive days.Yeah, it's not a precise term. The low calorie intake one is intermittent calorie restriction and the nothing one is intermittent fasting. The consecutive/non-consecutive is supposed to be so you don't get the body to drop metabolism (which would affect the rate you can lose fat). From the research I did it looks like you only see a modest drop in metabolism over two days.
Intermittent fasting has better results than restriction: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/73/10/661/1849182?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I like food too much.
That's generally why one needs to exercise in the first place.
-
@Karla said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@loopback0 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I'm trying 2:5 fasting currently. This is day 2 of my first two-day period eating nothing. I don't feel hungry at all currently, although it was slightly uncomfortable late last night.
Intermittent fasting should work way better than calorie restriction because your metabolism doesn't seem to really drop down until at least 3 days without food, ergo 2 days should burn the most fat without putting yourself into starvation-mode and stopping the weight loss.I thought the 2:5 was where you ate a restricted amount (600cal for men IIRC) on 2 non-consecutive days and ate normally the rest.
I've not heard of eating nothing for 2 consecutive days.Yeah, it's not a precise term. The low calorie intake one is intermittent calorie restriction and the nothing one is intermittent fasting. The consecutive/non-consecutive is supposed to be so you don't get the body to drop metabolism (which would affect the rate you can lose fat). From the research I did it looks like you only see a modest drop in metabolism over two days.
Intermittent fasting has better results than restriction: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/73/10/661/1849182?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I like food too much.
I appreciate food, but I'm not overly enamored by it. Much like sex, I suppose, but I have no experience in that avenue....
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
Oh yeah. Thanks for reminding me! The actual reason I resurrected this topic was to mention that I'm getting a fitbit 3 because I need to put $3,000 of purchases on my new credit card within three months in order to get my introductory pointz.
We'll see the effectiveness of the device when it arrives in three weeks...What's this? A shipment notice?
Well, that's the day I'm waking up early to talk to Microsoft about doing Analytics, maybe I'll just stay home...
-
@pie_flavor said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Karla said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@loopback0 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I'm trying 2:5 fasting currently. This is day 2 of my first two-day period eating nothing. I don't feel hungry at all currently, although it was slightly uncomfortable late last night.
Intermittent fasting should work way better than calorie restriction because your metabolism doesn't seem to really drop down until at least 3 days without food, ergo 2 days should burn the most fat without putting yourself into starvation-mode and stopping the weight loss.I thought the 2:5 was where you ate a restricted amount (600cal for men IIRC) on 2 non-consecutive days and ate normally the rest.
I've not heard of eating nothing for 2 consecutive days.Yeah, it's not a precise term. The low calorie intake one is intermittent calorie restriction and the nothing one is intermittent fasting. The consecutive/non-consecutive is supposed to be so you don't get the body to drop metabolism (which would affect the rate you can lose fat). From the research I did it looks like you only see a modest drop in metabolism over two days.
Intermittent fasting has better results than restriction: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/73/10/661/1849182?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I like food too much.
That's generally why one needs to exercise in the first place.
Exercise doesn't have much of an effect on that, though.
-
@pie_flavor said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Karla said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@loopback0 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I'm trying 2:5 fasting currently. This is day 2 of my first two-day period eating nothing. I don't feel hungry at all currently, although it was slightly uncomfortable late last night.
Intermittent fasting should work way better than calorie restriction because your metabolism doesn't seem to really drop down until at least 3 days without food, ergo 2 days should burn the most fat without putting yourself into starvation-mode and stopping the weight loss.I thought the 2:5 was where you ate a restricted amount (600cal for men IIRC) on 2 non-consecutive days and ate normally the rest.
I've not heard of eating nothing for 2 consecutive days.Yeah, it's not a precise term. The low calorie intake one is intermittent calorie restriction and the nothing one is intermittent fasting. The consecutive/non-consecutive is supposed to be so you don't get the body to drop metabolism (which would affect the rate you can lose fat). From the research I did it looks like you only see a modest drop in metabolism over two days.
Intermittent fasting has better results than restriction: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/73/10/661/1849182?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I like food too much.
That's generally why one needs to exercise in the first place.
Still a lot easier to eat 1000 calories than it is to burn 1000 calories.
-
@mott555 3 miles in 25 minutes today. I'm back to cardio-limited. My legs felt like they'd go forever, but my heartrate kept topping out at 200 and that doesn't feel very good. But an 1/8-mile walk at 4mph gets me back down to 150-ish, and I'm good to run another half mile afterwards until I need to walk again. I no longer feel like I'm starting to faint at the peaks, and I don't crash for 10 hours afterwards anymore. I suppose that's a good thing.
-
@Karla said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
Still a lot easier to eat 1000 calories than it is to burn 1000 calories.
-
I am slightly more physically perfect than yesterday, thanks to no effort.
-
@TimeBandit said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Karla said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
Still a lot easier to eat 1000 calories than it is to burn 1000 calories.
The placement of that logo though...
-
@Gribnit said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I am slightly more physically perfect than yesterday, thanks to no effort.
On my part, in any case.
-
@Karla said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@pie_flavor said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Karla said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@loopback0 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@Cursorkeys said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
I'm trying 2:5 fasting currently. This is day 2 of my first two-day period eating nothing. I don't feel hungry at all currently, although it was slightly uncomfortable late last night.
Intermittent fasting should work way better than calorie restriction because your metabolism doesn't seem to really drop down until at least 3 days without food, ergo 2 days should burn the most fat without putting yourself into starvation-mode and stopping the weight loss.I thought the 2:5 was where you ate a restricted amount (600cal for men IIRC) on 2 non-consecutive days and ate normally the rest.
I've not heard of eating nothing for 2 consecutive days.Yeah, it's not a precise term. The low calorie intake one is intermittent calorie restriction and the nothing one is intermittent fasting. The consecutive/non-consecutive is supposed to be so you don't get the body to drop metabolism (which would affect the rate you can lose fat). From the research I did it looks like you only see a modest drop in metabolism over two days.
Intermittent fasting has better results than restriction: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/73/10/661/1849182?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I like food too much.
That's generally why one needs to exercise in the first place.
Still a lot easier to eat 1000 calories than it is to burn 1000 calories.
...as indicated by the fact that energy expenditure is usually measured in calories, while food consumption is usually measured in Calories (note the capital C), which are kilocalories.
-
Time for some sport
pornstatistics!So let's take a look at this mornings local MTB ride (height in meters)
Oh yeah! Look at those mountains I conquered!
-
@Luhmann Looks like some fierce bridges there mate.
-
@PleegWat
funny thing is that some of those should be equal height ... unless the bridge grew or shrunk during the half hour I was on the other side ... the last twin set of sharp peaks is me riding up and down the side of a bridge head ... but I did that part before I did cross the set of bridges ... my house also rose almost 10 meters during my 2 hour trip. Nice ...So we have got lies, damn lies and statistics I guess ... and inaccurate GPS measurements
-
@Luhmann Or a low sample rate.
Is this even GPS powered, or does it use air pressure?
-
GPS I think it's from a Garmin bike GPS
-
@Luhmann well GPS height is less accurate than the other two dimensions because it only uses satellites at least 45° above the horizon. Wouldn't know how much that affects things.
-
@PleegWat GPS is usually accurate to a few feet or better on the latitude/longitude axes. On elevation, it can be off by as much as several hundred feet. I think the original GPS design was never intended to measure elevation but I didn't even spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express so I could be very wrong on that part.
For comparison, a calibrated barometric altimeter (even a cheap one, I have one I spent about $2 for to play with on an Arduino) is accurate to less than an inch! I don't remember what the survey crews at my last company did to measure elevation.
-
I used to have boss who ran marathons. One day he was telling me that he scheduled his vacation so he could run in the New York City marathon.
I just said "I don't like to drive 26 miles."
-
@mott555 The worst part of this is that I'm so freaking hungry now. All the time. I no longer have a 1300-calorie-per-day metabolism and I want to eat everything in sight. Bring me all the bacon and eggs you have.
-
@mott555 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
Bring me all the bacon and eggs you have.
Recipe: https://www.tablespoon.com/recipes/maple-bacon-breakfast-pie/9a0e457f-783a-4d79-a330-38d7f56c5221
FileUnder: I was just looking for an image, now I'm hungry for this
-
@PleegWat
Plenty ...
-
@TimeBandit Thanks a lot, jerk. Now I need to visit the nearby supermarket for lunch and see if they have anything like that in the frozen foods section...and I'm going to buy them all and eat them all
-
@mott555 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
jerk
It's not jerk, it's bacon. Just letting you know, chief...
-
@mott555 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
For comparison, a calibrated barometric altimeter (even a cheap one, I have one I spent about $2 for to play with on an Arduino) is accurate to less than an inch! I don't remember what the survey crews at my last company did to measure elevation.
Now that you mention it...
The app I use to view detailed GPS data (GPS Essentials) has a function for 'Pressure Altitude'. That does indeed give accurate height differences within the 10cm precision it displays, though the absolute value is bogus (-19.5 while it should be about 0 at that level). There's probably a way to set a reference pressure.
Meanwhile I can't say anything about the GPS altitude since I only get a wifi lock while sitting behind my desk.
-
@mott555 Ugh. I just ate 1600 calories worth of Tombstone breakfast pizzas.
-
@mott555 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
@mott555 Ugh. I just ate 1600 calories worth of Tombstone breakfast pizzas.
So now you don't need to eat anything more for the rest of the day, except small shadow!
-
@mott555 said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
Bring me all the bacon and eggs you have.
No. You can have my bacon when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. But you have more guns than I do, so it wouldn't be very difficult, if you really want it that badly.
-
@HardwareGeek said in WTDWTF Fitness Group:
But you have more guns than I do, so it wouldn't be very difficult,
I'm willing to bet 100% of my guns are illegal in your state, though. So they'd all magically vanish once I crossed over, or something.