Posts by john_liu

User's Posts | User's Topics

Forum	Topic	Date	Replies
Fitness	calories burned in hot yoga?	Mar 07 2013 02:11 (UTC)	3
Maybe an experiment would be interesting. Normally, calories burned in exercise are related to heart rate. Higher sustained heart rate means higher calorie burn. But just being stationary in a hot room raises heart rate to rise, not because of . exercise but because of heat stress. Thus sitting in a sauna is not a very effective cardio workout. So, you could sit still in the hot yoga room for half a hour and see where your heart rate stabilizes. Then, you could do yoga in that hot room for a half hour and see how much higher your heart rate goes, due to the exercise. You could compare that rise in heart rate to the rise in heart rate you get from a standard cardio exercise like stationary bike, treadmill, elliptical.
Fitness	X Uses The Same Muscles As Y . . .	Mar 07 2013 01:53 (UTC)	1
Thank you for that reply. It was thought out and really helpful. I started out thinking about sports that are similar or equivalent workouts. My reasoning was something like this: running is not challenging my cardio (my legs give up before my heart is even fussed); if the muscles are so different that a running workout is like laying on the couch as far as cycling muscles are concerned, then won't running actually take away from my bike fitness? After reading through your post, I am starting to think that complementary and not-equivalent workouts seem like a good idea after all. My reasoning now is: if I can cycle well but can't even run 5 miles at a credible pace, how can I consider myself fit; same with if I can cycle well but have stick-figure arms or am so tight that I can't touch my toes (not quite that bad but not entirely untrue); shouldn't I aspire to all-around fitness? I guess there are multiple angles to everything. Part of this is just curiously about the biomechanics of different sports. For example, I never knew that about hockey and golf; that is interesting.
Fitness	Watts to MPH	Mar 05 2013 10:14 (UTC)	1
Kind of a zombie thread but - The above is all wrong. Go here for a bike power calculator. Input weight, position, grade (if climbing a hill), speed, etc - lots of parameters - and get the approximate watts required. This is an actual calculation that takes into account air resistance, rolling resistance, etc. http://bikecalculator.com/ You'll see that there's no way a rider on flat ground going 20-ish mph is putting out 800 watts even if he weighs 400 lb. 800 watts is blasting him along at 30-plus mph. Most recreational cyclists can't put out 800 watts for more than a few seconds.
Fitness	Starting in a spinning class if obese/out of shape?	Jan 08 2013 12:10 (UTC)	1
A spin class is hard or easy depending on the resistance you set, your cadence (how fast you pedal), and if you are standing vs seated. If you set light resistance and pedal slowly seated, it is almost no effort. So, start from there and adjust the workload up gradually. Take breaks when you need to. Don't push too much resistance at first. Have the instructor set your bike up, you want the seat to be high enough so your leg is almost fully extended at the lowest part of the pedal stroke. Then remember the settings. Yes, weight loss is almost entirely about calorie deficit, and its possible to lose weight while never leaving the couch. But cardiovascular health and feeling active are important, so why not exercise? Cycling is low impact, a spin class lets you adjust the pace to your level, and its not cold, raining or snowing which might matter or not depending on where you live.
Fitness	Biking	Dec 24 2012 05:04 (UTC)	5
If you are causing yourself significant knee pain, I'd stop whatever you are doing and consult a doctor or other expert. You need your knees for things like walking and being independent in your old age. Don't burn them up cycling, if they can't handle it. Anyway, 15 min X 3 times/day is 45 min at 12 mph - without checking a calorie chart, I'm going to say that might burn 300 calories, at best. I think you should find another exercise that your knees can handle better. Swimming is easy on the joints, burns a ton of calories, and works your whole body.
Fitness	1000+ calories burnt under an hour	Dec 19 2012 10:54 (UTC)	3
Note this http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/ar ticles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspx
Fitness	Knee hurts from jogging. Alternative stuff?	Dec 19 2012 10:39 (UTC)	9
Fat loss: eat fewer calories. Muscle gain: bodyweight exercises.
Fitness	1000+ calories burnt under an hour	Dec 15 2012 22:09 (UTC)	6
It is very unlikely that you are burning 1000 cal/hour on the elliptical. Calorie burn counters on exercise equipment is notoriously inaccurate, and the manufacturers have an incentive to read "high". 1000 cal/hr is what professional bicycle racers are burning during stages of the Tour de France. http://www.indoorcyclingassociation.com/blog/ ?p=162 http://www.thestar.com/sports/tourdefrance/ar ticle/1024707--barry-what-a-tour-rider-puts-i n-his-stomach Anyway, don't get hung up on what the calorie meter shows. Your goals are not to reach a certain point on the calorie meter. Your goals are to build fitness, build muscle, lose weight, some combination of those.
Fitness	Biking	Dec 15 2012 06:09 (UTC)	13
That's great progress. Keep it going! As you get fitter, you get lighter. As you get lighter, you climb faster. I started back into cycling a few years ago, by riding my old mountain bike to work. I'd get home dripping and exhausted. Then it got easier, and commuting wasn't enough exercise. I started climbing the hill in a local park. The first day, I crawled up in my lowest gear (24 x 28 on 26" wheels), gasping, barely keeping up with joggers. I kept going back to that hill, climbing up, descending, and repeating, adding more and more laps. eventually I was going up on a road bike (39 x 21 on 700C wheels) and reasonably briskly too. Then I got interested in doing a longer ride. I did a 25 mile ride, then a few 50 mile rides. When those were easy, I did a 200 mile weekend, 100 miles each day. It wasn't even hard. Not all that long before, just riding 3-4 miles from work to home had been tough. You're going to see that sort of progress too, and faster than me, if you're systematic and disciplined about it (I wasn't). It is December. Why don't you find a organized century (100 mile) ride in your area that takes place sometime next summer. Nothing too hilly, nothing competitive, something well-supported and friendly. Sign up for it now. put together a training plan. By 1 month before the ride, you want to be going out on Saturdays and knocking off 60 mile rides without any fuss. You can certainly be there in 5 months. That gives you plenty of time to sort out the bike too, if needed. By the time that century is behind you, I'll bet you are 20 lb lighter with legs that girls wish they had. I think cycling is a pretty good way to get in shape. It has its limits - does nothing for the upper body/core, and you have to ride pretty hard to get a workout as bicycles are quite efficient. But it has big pluses - riding is fun, bikes are fun, it doesn't beat up your joints, you don't need to join a gym, and you can use the bike to get to work or do errands and thus incorporate exercise into your daily routine.
Fitness	A frivolous post about cycling and running	Dec 02 2012 18:24 (UTC)	3
I've never paid attention to you before. I've not been a regular on this forum for a year or so. Probably since you were 14 y/o . . .
Fitness	A frivolous post about cycling and running	Dec 02 2012 17:16 (UTC)	5
Here is your post after your first edit. Just for documentation's sake. Original Post by trackcycle: I'm a cyclist and I did a double this year and I plan on doing a double and a triple and probably a 24 hour ride next year too. My goal time for the triple is 18 hours or less (16.7 mph probably 17.2 or so factoring in stop signs and stop lights maybe even higher.) I could probably run a marathon at a super-slow pace (like 9 or 10 minute miles,) I'm a horrible runner the fastest mile I have done is 4:11.. don't remember but it's pretty bad. In my opinion a century can be done with no prior training and negligible fitness, as long as you have at least some idea of proper nutrition on the bike. But it will probably be a "bad" time (7:30+). Whilst I'm not completely sure I doubt that many of them could complete a double in under 14 hours.. I'm just guessing but most people (Americans) probably can't run a whole marathon, but they could probably walk a marathon. I would also think that if they took up training, eating correctly and having a decent weight they could probably be able to run a "decent" marathon in no longer than a 2 or 3 months of training. Marathon is much harder to complete in a "decent" (sub 4) time for a beginner or recreational athlete. While a century would take a lot longer to complete for a recreational athlete (probably) it would be a fair bit easier to complete, there's no impact, easier to eat and drink, etc. On the other hand, if the century was in a place with lots of climbs (probably 10k plus for the whole century) it would be a lot harder than a flat century (also if there is 20 mph sustained winds with gusts... etc.) It might be slightly more challenging than a marathon. Doing a "fast" marathon (2:30 or less) is probably the same or slightly easier (because it's a lot shorter for same exertion probably) than doing a "fast" century (solo sub 5:00 IMO)
Fitness	A frivolous post about cycling and running	Dec 02 2012 17:11 (UTC)	6
You edited your own post, sometime early this morning. I'm not sure what you are up to, but you've been caught. Maybe you should have edited out the "horrible runner" part too, Mr. Supposed 4:11 Miler . . .
Fitness	Heart Rate Decline After Exertion - Indicates Heart Health?	Dec 02 2012 17:04 (UTC)	5
I found this http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Dimpka%20 12(1)10-22.doc Which reinforces my interest in the measurement, but doesn't offer much guidance on how to measure.
Fitness	spinning bike!!	Dec 02 2012 16:01 (UTC)	4
Okay. Original poster, if you are other than the young, healthy, new mom that you appear to be, then get thee to a doctor and receive a full medical workup before doing things that young, healthy, new mothers do. Original Post by jerry_halcomb: How could you possibly recommend 140 b/m heart rate without knowing her fitness level etc? To the original poster, please make sure you are healthy enough to exercise, see a doctor first to get a baseline health check. Talk to a health care pro about exercise exertion levels.
Fitness	A frivolous post about cycling and running	Dec 02 2012 11:13 (UTC)	8
??? Original Post by trackcycle: I'm a cyclist and I did a double this year and I plan on doing a double and a triple and probably a 24 hour ride next year too. My goal time for the triple is 18 hours or less (16.7 mph probably 17.2 or so factoring in stop signs and stop lights maybe even higher.) I could probably run a marathon at a super-slow pace (like 9 or 10 minute miles,) I'm a horrible runner the fastest mile I have done is 6:25 or 35.. don't remember but it's pretty bad. I have trouble sustaining 8 minute miles for long even though my HR doesn't go above 140 during those runs (I can sustain 155 - 170 for over an hour on the bike.) I rarely run more than a few miles at a time-- during this summer I rode 1000 - 1300 miles a month (250 - 325/wk.) In my opinion a century can be done with no prior training and negligible fitness, as long as you have at least some idea of proper nutrition on the bike. But it will probably be a "bad" time (7:30+). Whilst I'm not completely sure I doubt that many of them could complete a double in under 14 hours.. I'm just guessing but most people (Americans) probably can't run a whole marathon, but they could probably walk a marathon. I would also think that if they took up training, eating correctly and having a decent weight they could probably be able to run a "decent" marathon in no longer than a 2 or 3 months of training. Marathon is much harder to complete in a "decent" (sub 4) time for a beginner or recreational athlete. While a century would take a lot longer to complete for a recreational athlete (probably) it would be a fair bit easier to complete, there's no impact, easier to eat and drink, etc. On the other hand, if the century was in a place with lots of climbs (probably 10k plus for the whole century) it would be a lot harder than a flat century (also if there is 20 mph sustained winds with gusts... etc.) It might be slightly more challenging than a marathon. Doing a "fast" marathon (2:30 or less) is probably the same or slightly easier (because it's a lot shorter for same exertion probably) than doing a "fast" century (solo sub 5:00 IMO)
Fitness	Try to beat my time! How fast can you run a mile?	Dec 02 2012 11:12 (UTC)	1
Over on the thread "A Frivolous Post About Cycling And Running", user "trackcycle" says (post 23): "I could probably run a marathon at a super-slow pace (like 9 or 10 minute miles,) I'm a horrible runner the fastest mile I have done is 6:25 or 35.. don't remember but it's pretty bad. I have trouble sustaining 8 minute miles for long even though my HR doesn't go above 140 during those runs (I can sustain 155 - 170 for over an hour on the bike.) I rarely run more than a few miles at a time-- during this summer I rode 1000 - 1300 miles a month (250 - 325/wk.)" But here the same user says: Original Post by trackcycle: I am a male 16 years old I am not a competitive runner.. I run quite a bit though... for fun.. and to burn kcal(s). Here are my times: Mile- 4:11.02 800m- 1:51.58 400m- 0:48.33 200m- 19.75 100m- 10.13 40m- 4.42 Hmm? Multiple people posting with the same account?
Fitness	A frivolous post about cycling and running	Dec 01 2012 08:36 (UTC)	10
I think the conversion table is too generous at the lower speeds. 20 miles cycling at 10 mph? 10 mph requires almost no effort, take a few pedal strokes, as light as if you were walking, then coast. Doing that for 2 hours is, I think, about as much work as walking a mile. Which has to be a lot less effort than running the distance specified.
Fitness	spinning bike!!	Nov 30 2012 03:55 (UTC)	8
If the spin bike is set to low resistance, it is very easy to pedal. You can waste an hour casually spinning the thing and get very little benefit, either in calories burned or in cardio or muscular exercise. So measure your heart rate and let that keep you working hard. Either increase the resistance, or increase your pedaling cadence, to get your heart rate to at least 140 beats/minute and hold it there. Now you are getting some exercise. An hour of this will burn very roughly 400 calories. Of course, you still have to eat significantly less than you burn each day (calorie deficit). If you don't restrict your eating, you can ride the spin bike all day and not lose a pound.
Fitness	Cycling Question: Spin Classes At Gym, Is This Good Training For Road Cycling?	Nov 08 2012 02:13 (UTC)	1
I had a spin class yesterday with a substitute instructor who emphasized actual cycling training. We stayed in the saddle most of the time, pushed significant resistance, cadence 80-100, did one legged and paceline drills. I liked it a lot, hopefully she will teach more classes. I emailed the training head about how good she was.
Fitness	Cycling Question: Spin Classes At Gym, Is This Good Training For Road Cycling?	Oct 31 2012 14:40 (UTC)	3
Just reading around the web and asking on a cycling-specific forum, I am seeing mixed views about the quick repeated standing up/sitting down (I gather these are called "jumps") and the pushups on the handlebars. I'm also being told that I need to make sure the pedal resistance (apparently also called "tension" in spin lingo) is similar to actual riding.

« previous12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9...15 16 next »

Eat for Better Health