Posts by oldguysrule

Thank you, everyone for your well wishes, suggestions, and for sharing your personal experiences.

I go mostly with 'intuitive eating," meaning that I don't have some sort of sadistic overlord controlling how many calories that I eat each day. So, for me, I pay a lot of attention to what activities make me hungrier, as compared to how many calories that the activities actually burn.

If I need to trim a few pounds, I shift the percentages (of my workout time) towards medium intensity cardio. I can add more time on that, without increasing my hunger much. If my weight is on the low end of my range, I can afford to do more strength training and/or high intensity cardio, and will be able to eat enough to recover (and get the best benefits) from those type workouts.

OGR

Combining my experience, plus lots of reading on the subject:

Cramps during exercise are due to fitness level, or ill fitting gear (like a pressure point on top of the foot). Cramps at rest are due to neurological problem, that are sometimes due to electrolyte problems. I get night twitches, and morning leg cramps, if I don't take magnesium supplements.

Potassium supplements are incredibly weak (compared to RDA levels), because too much potassium can stop your heart, and the makers don't want to get sued. I think that they are a waste of money, compared to good food. CA supplements can cause cramping, and I don't recommend taking them before bedtime. Most people get too much sodium from their diet already, but long distance runners often take supplements if they are "eating clean." I take sodium supplements on days that I work out for more than an hour (I lose two pounds an hour from sweat, when running). Personally, magnesium supplements noticeably increase the quality of my life. I take a chelated variety (the cheap oxide is worthless). It helps me sleep, avoid cramps, stay mellow, have low blood pressure, low heart rate etc.

If you take both Mg and Ca, take them separately, at different times of the day. Otherwise, they compete for absorption.

@scrapper78: the naturally occurring sugar in milk is lactose, not dextrose. Since it is a disaccharide, containing glucose and galactose, it is harder to digest than many other sugars. That is why 75% of the worlds population is lactose intolerant.

I think that a really good scale, along with knowledge of what causes daily/hourly weight fluctuations (not a trivial thing) can be a person's ticket to weight loss. Everything make much more sense if a person has a scientific/analytical/mathematical background though.

I've tried tape measurements, and find that they are far more variable than scale weight is, and less reproducible/repeatable.

Calipers are cheap and easy to use. Not quite as sensitive as your bodyweight is to small changes, but you are measuring an important quantity (subcutaneous fat thickness).

I also do underwater weighings several times a year. That really tells me how I am doing as far as fat vs muscle (and it includes the deeper visceral fat).  It is a hassle though.

I envy people that can get results without frequent measurements. It seems analogous to the blind guy that climbing Everest (doable, but much harder than normal).

I've always liked the quote: "Measure the parameter that you want to improve." For reasons too technical to explain here, this almost always gives the best results.

Original Post by janeisimmons:

I run ~30 mpw and eat anywhere from 1500-2000 cal per day (for anyone checking my profile: yes, I eat more than I log on most days...). However, I've been gaining weight for some reason. Is it really true that your body can get used to a workout (like running, for example) when you do it so often and stops burning the same amount of calories or boosting your metabolism? I've heard and read many things, I'd love to hear what you all have experienced. If its true, what are the best workouts besides running?

The "getting used to a workout, and burning fewer calories" doesn't usually apply to running, assuming the speed is constant. On the other hand, you can do specific types of running workouts to improve your running efficiency, and might make improvements of about 20%, if you are lucky. But, of course you'd just run 20% faster in your workouts in that case, and still be burning the same calories that you were before.

More common is that runners get used to training at higher intensities as they get better, and that means they burn more (not less) calories in a typical workout of the same duration.

metabolicmom: Burpee box jumps!? We need a video of that, for inspiration.

When I'm training for a race, but need to reduce my actual running mileage (for whatever reason), I use inclined walking, and sometimes rowing (concept 2 erg).

I use the walk/run metabolic calculator at exrx.org to make the incline walking equal the same cardio equivalent of running. It strengthens my legs, heart and lungs, but has no detrimental impact on my feet, ankles, and knees. I do the same range of intensities (tempo, intervals, recovery etc.) as in my running program.

The rowing keeps my back and shoulders strong for good posture while running. It has such a deep range of leg motion that it helps speed recovery.

Original Post by sbrn_:

Thanks, oldguysrule, I'm aware of this. Are any exercises in particular more efficient than others in your experience? Do you think crunches really are so useless?

Crunches can be a useful part of a good overall plan. It depends on the individual person who is doing them. They got a bad reputation since people were doing 100's of them (sometimes 1000's!) to the exclusion of other exercises that stabilize the spine. 

Variations of crunches strengthen (and enlarge) the vertically oriented, superficial, muscles (rectus abdominus) that pull the ribs towards the pelvis . They also keep your lower back from bending backwards when you use your hip flexors to lift your legs. Many people only use that muscle only twice a day in normal life, when they get out of bed in the morning, and (eccentrically) when they lay down. Climbers use those muscles a lot.  If the rectus abdominus gets too strong, compared to the back extensors, your back can lose its natural curve in the lower part. It can give you bad (hunched over) posture.

Much more important are the, deeper, transverse abdominus muscles. They go sideways all the way around and connect to your back. They hold everything together when you do hard things. They allow forces from your legs to get to your upper back and arms, like when you throw a ball or push a car. Those muscles have more of a stabilizing role, rather than moving body parts. Planks, medicine ball exercises, and the fit-ball exercises activate and strengthen the TA muscles.

So, whether crunches (or even situps) are good for someone depends on their strength balance between front and back, if they do them correctly!, if they already have too little or too much curve in their lower back, what other exercises are in their program, and if they tend towards hypermobility problems vs having a generally stiff back that needs to loosen up some. Some of the risks can be alleviated by doing the exercises with support of a fit-ball.

Depending on what you mean by "efficient," and what you are trying to achieve, there are plenty of exercises that are likely "better" for you than crunches. Take something like hanging knee/leg raises. They tax your grip, the stability of your shoulder girdle, lats, hip flexors, etc. in addition to your "abs." Hanging toes-to-bar (or knees to elbows) is a super good exercise. You still have to strengthen your back accordingly/equally though.

Any chance that you live near a playground/park that has some bars? You could do great full body workouts there.

Just so I don't feel like a total wimp (my treadmill runs, compared to beir's running in the snow), I'm posting a movie of a 54 lb pinch grip lift. I'm actually up to 59 lbs, but don't have a movie of that. Long term goal is a one-handed pinch lift of two 35 pound plates together (smooth sides out of course, lol).