A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Walking in the UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 4th 03, 09:55 AM
Roger Chapman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

I thought I had better give my new heart monitor a proper test so as
Wednesday was supposedly the best day of the week for weather it was off
to The Lakes in search of some new Wainwrights.

An early start from home was blighted by early morning mist (the valley
below ooked solid at dawn) but when I did finally set out (6.10 am) I
found the mist hardly think enough to be a worry.

I am beginning to run out of useful groupings so my target for the day
was the small hills North of the Whinlatter Pass starting with
Graystones from Scawgill Bridge. Not the sort of start I liked. A very
short bit of flat followed by a slope so steep that at times I was going
so slowly I almost lost my balance and fell over.

Almost as soon as I started the steep bit my heart rate passed the
formula maximum of 161 bpm and for most of that first ascent it was at
my new maximum of 179 or close to it. By the time the gradient eased I
was sweating profusely and had some slight pain in the chest (lungs
objecting to working hard).

Graystones is another of those infuriating twin summits and it was some
time before I had convinced myself that the out of the way one was the
map summit and had to be done. (Looking at Wainwright he seems to show
the second summit as Graystones and the map certainly does but my GPS
gave the first pre-eminence at 1467 feet over 1461.) The weather was
overcast but there was little haze that early in the day so the second
summit in particular had fine views out over the Solway Firth.

Next on the agenda was Broom Fell with quite a deep dip in between. Now
I donít like descending but my heart evidently does. The heart rate was
lower on the descents than it was on the level. A relatively short rise,
another rise in heart beats, this time no more than a modest 155 bpm and
another double summit. The first with a fine stone man, the second
(virtually unvisited if the lack of track was any guide) just a handful
of stones. (Wainwright has the first but I have my doubts. FWIW the GPS
says 1664 feet for the first and 1667 for the second).

From there it was an easy trudge to Lordís Seat but still enough of a
climb to up the heart rate up to 155. From Lordís Seat there is a
considerable drop to the lowest of this group, Barf, which gave the
least heartache of the day with a mere 153 maximum.

In planning my route I had included the possibility of contouring to
avoid visiting Lordís Seat again provided the forestry didnít make it
impossible and I was pleased to find as I started the traverse that
sufficient others had been before me to make a significant path. (In
fact the path looked ancient). At the col between Lordís Seat and
Ullister Hill the path I was following (and heading in the direction I
had originally intended to take) crossed a new quarry waste path at
rightangles so I turned left thinking it would lead either to the forest
road I was heading for or perhaps to Ullister hill. However it soon
split in two, left and right of Ullister Hill which I was now determined
to visit so I headed straight on on an old fashioned peaty path.

From the summit of Ullister Hill I could see yet another quarry waste
path just below heading in much the direction I wanted to take so I
joined that and followed it till I thought it was taking me too far to
the East so I took to steep heather that went the other side of a bunch
of trees. In fact I had got my directions wrong and when I eventually
gained the forest road below I had to backtrack to the point where the
path
joined. (It would have helped to consult the map rather than rely on the
gps goto still aimed at the started of the intended descent).

Whinlatter itself was to be the final peak of this walk if at all
possible. Wainwright had claimed that the forestry and fences had made
the ridge walk impossible but I was fairly confident that in 40 years
someone would have forced a way through but when I reached the T
junction below Knotts I wasnít so certain. Directly across was a faint
line in the grass leading to a even slighter gap in the trees. Just
within the wood were 2 stakes either side of and extremely uninviting
(impassable) way with a broad ribbon
blocking the direct way forward. I retreated and headed West looking for
another way (or to follow plan B and attack the hill from lower down
where there was a gap in the trees) and very shortly found a perfectly
serviceable path up through the trees. My confidence had not been
misplaced.

From Knotts it was easy going to the summit ridge of Whinlatter - yet
another twin summited peak. Wainwright has the West summit (Brown How)
as the main summit but my GPS disagreed yet again. It gave the East
Summit (Whinlatter top on the old 1:25,000 but not on the 1Ē) precedence
at 1745 feet over 1726.

Wainwright had no routes off the West end of Whinlatter which is ringed
with forest so I had decided to backtrack from the summit if there was
no path leading onwards but there was such a path, prominent at first
but getting fainter and fainter as it headed downwards until I lost it
completely some distance above the forest which was protected here by a
wall and a fence. The wall was substantial but at one point there
was a prominent gap so I headed for that and found an easy crossing into
a mature wood that was not to difficult to descend through although I
made it more difficult for myself by heading initially for a firebreak
which was worse going and turned a very inconvenient rightangle as soon
as I reached it.

Having escaped the firebreak into easier going I descended downwards
until I reached a transverse track that was not marked on either of my
maps and which headed gently upwards in both directions. At which point
I had a stroke of luck - Ďvoices offí turned out to be a family party
heading up the hill following a modern guidebook description and doing
my route in reverse. Having exchanged directions to avoid the worst of
the debris underfoot (there was no sign of any actual path) I headed on
downward until I hit the track leading to Darling How Farm and from
there back to the road and very soon to my car where I had an early
lunch.

After lunch I drove round to Wythop to finish the remaining 2 fells in
the group. I parked first at the beginning of the farm track below Sale
Fell next to another car.

Like all the other hills that day this one had a steep ascent and my
heart rate was soon in the upper 160s. Luckily it was a short ascent. On
the summit I found a young couple who presumably belonged to the car
below. We exchanged a few words but I did not linger long although there
was an excellent view of the Ullock Pike Ridge and Dodd where I had
suffered earlier in the year.

Being idle I decided to drive up the road towards Ling Fell and luckily
I found a convenient place to park close to the start of Wainwrights
route which I followed for the way up. Even this gentle ascent raised my
heart rate to the high 160s. On the way down I missed the path (which
was indistinct in the upper stages) and unintentionally took a rather
shorter way back. Luckily neither the heather nor the bracken was
sufficiently thick to prove much of a hindrance. As I descended I saw
the couple on the other hill descending and as I drove back I passed
them walking up the road presumably hoping to do Ling Fell as well.
Given that they had set out sufficiently in front of me not to have been
visible before they reached the summit of Sale Fell I think I must have
done both peaks in rather less time than it took them to do just the
one.

It was still only mid afternoon a so I was in a bit of a quandary. I
didnít want to go straight home but wasnít sure of anything small nearby
that I could do. The choice eventually boiled down to Hutton Roof Crags
without a map or Black Fell from the 1" and as Black Fell was more out
of the way (and on the map) Black Fell won but I nearly lost the time
for even that by attempting to bypass a traffic hold-up in Ambleside
(some monster lorry trying to reverse into a hole too small for it) and
finding that the one way system blocked any chance of getting through to
the Coniston Road while the stationary traffic blocked any chance of
getting back from when I had come. I eventually opted to retreat to
Rydal and take the (very) minor road to Clappersgate.

Anyway I eventually parked up to the East of Black Fell where the minor
road turns towards the Drunken Duck and a PROW heads South. (Here the NT
had turned the start of the track into a wide area but inconsiderately
fenced it off from the road. I set off up this track hoping to force my
way up the side of the hill (itís only a little hill after all) where
the 1" suggested there were no trees. The PROW climbed for a bit and
then started down again which didnít suit me at all but luckily just 35
yards further on and with almost no loss of height I was able to turn
off on a path heading upwards through trees that werenít even shown on
the map.

It was lucky I hadnít Book Four with me because Wainwright (who shows
the path ceasing halfway up wrote "Starts up the east flank may quickly
lead to desperate manoeuvres in thick plantations."
I was spared the desperate manoeuvres as a path of sorts now leads all
the way to the summit but it was still a stiff climb (heart rate low
170s this time) and the route had a sting in the tail, or 2 if you count
the wall near the summit. Partway up a fence is crossed where there is
the remains of a stile but at the wall the farmer obviously doesnít like
the path as he has replaced the vertical topstones than had previously
been removed to provide a reasonable crossing. The real sting in the
tail is the sight of a prominent cairn that appears to be the summit
almost until it is reached when the real summit is revealed yet further
on and higher up. How can such a small hill be such hard work?

The summit itself is a rocky point topped by a trig point carrying a NT
plaque naming it as Black Crag. It also provided a very good view of the
Langdales and mostly in sunshine as the weather had been improving all
day.

I mislaid the top end of the path on the way down so climbed the wall at
a different place where the presence of projecting throughs (the long
stones that tie the 2 faces of the wall together) made it much easier.
Unlike the previous hill I shortly thereafter rejoined the way up and
retreated to the car with no further problems.

In case I havenít made it clear despite the diminutive stature of the
hills I found all 4 walks enjoyable.

Now those worries.

On the way up Graystones the boot on my dodgy foot started rubbing the
heel. On the summit I removed and checked for any inclusions but
couldnít find any reason why a boot I had worn for some years had
suddenly become uncomfortable. I tried lacing it up less tightly but
that made no difference and the problem returned whenever a steep ascent
forced me onto my toes which was quite often.

Secondly I am worried that when I set what I consider a reasonable pace
for a steep hill the heart rate monitor tells me I am working very close
to maximum heart rate.

Thirdly however hard I walk I donít seem able to shed any weight. OK I
will sweat out a few lbs of water but that goes back on within 24 hours
as a rule.

Forthly (but by no means leastly) I am now worried that perhaps I am as
fit as I ever will be so even relatively easy challenges such as the
Yorkshire 3 Peaks will now be beyond me. Only this spring a similar
ascent to Graystones (Glenridding Dodd) left me in an advanced state of
knackeration after only a few hundred feet so I am much fitter now than
I was then it is some time since I have sensed any improvement.

Finally for anyone who has lasted the course the statistics.

Main walk - 8.15 miles and 2460 feet of ascent in 3 hours 42 minutes.

Sale Fell - 1.41 miles and 650 feet of ascent in 36 minutes.

Ling Fell - 1.69 miles and 550 feet of ascent in 37 minutes

Black Fell - 1.88 miles and 740 feet of ascent in 49 minutes

Totals - 13.13 miles and 4400 feet of ascent in 5 hours 44 minutes
(excluding intermissions)

So all in all should have been quite an easy day - not that it felt that way.

--
Roger
Looking North over the Aire Valley (and Marley Gasworks) to Rombolds Moor
Top Posters killfiled on sight
  #2  
Old September 4th 03, 11:44 AM
The Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

Following up to Roger Chapman

Thirdly however hard I walk I donít seem able to shed any weight. OK I
will sweat out a few lbs of water but that goes back on within 24 hours
as a rule.


I have come to the conclusion that exercise transfers fat to
muscle so you become more greek god than fat slob but at the same
weight. It might be interesting to measure waist over period as
well as weight?
I also find walking increases appetite with disasteruos results.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email [email protected] this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- "reply to" here is spamtrap
  #3  
Old September 4th 03, 12:59 PM
Boo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

Roger Chapman wrote:
Thirdly however hard I walk I donít seem able to shed any weight. OK I
will sweat out a few lbs of water but that goes back on within 24 hours
as a rule.


I think it takes a long walk with a big pack. Last years' 55 days worth
in the Pyrenees saw me lose more than 2 stone. A bout of Atkins this
year has seen me lose nearly 2 more. Previous 2 week long hiolidays in
the Pyrenees and elsewhere didn't seem to make any difference weight
wise so I think the excercise (especially if its walking, at which we
are all pretty efficient) needs to be prolonged to have any effect.

--
Boo

  #4  
Old September 4th 03, 04:09 PM
Roger Chapman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

The message
from The Reid contains these words:

I have come to the conclusion that exercise transfers fat to
muscle so you become more greek god than fat slob but at the same
weight. It might be interesting to measure waist over period as
well as weight?


Maybe, but my waist line is remarkably constant. Muscle incidentally is
denser than fat so muscle gain at no weight loss wouldn't be
particularly noticeable.

I also find walking increases appetite with disasteruos results.


That's at least part of the problem. :-)

--
Roger
Looking North over the Aire Valley (and Marley Gasworks) to Rombolds Moor
Top Posters killfiled on sight
  #5  
Old September 4th 03, 05:17 PM
John Laird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:09:21 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

The message
from The Reid contains these words:

I have come to the conclusion that exercise transfers fat to
muscle so you become more greek god than fat slob but at the same
weight. It might be interesting to measure waist over period as
well as weight?


Maybe, but my waist line is remarkably constant. Muscle incidentally is
denser than fat so muscle gain at no weight loss wouldn't be
particularly noticeable.


It's the stuff hanging over the waistline that's the problem. I blame
gravity - it used to be all up around the pecs, I'm sure.

Muscle may be heavier (slightly) but apparently it also raises your
metabolism. Sitting on your backside uses more calories the more muscled
you are. There's an incentive.

I may have missed your earlier posts about your MHR. You seem to have two
number in mind- how are they derived ? I found many references to the
220-age (for men), but also many qualifying comments along the lines of this
being very conservative for fitter individuals, especially older men. A
variant was 220-0.85*age, and the most extreme 205-0.5*age.

If you feel some chest discomfort or pain, you are probably overdoing it.

I also find walking increases appetite with disasteruos results.


That's at least part of the problem. :-)


Well, apparently a Big Mac will take you 10km on the flat. That's no
problem as long as it was a Big Mac you were going to have anyway. I get
very hungry on walks and take heaps to eat. The last time I neglected to
actually eat something on the way up, I was in a poor state at the top, all
in not much more than 2 hours. [Thinks: maybe those 4 courses for my summit
nosh could be cut back to 3...]

Oh, one last thing. Is your recovery rate not at least as much a measure of
fitness as your maximum work rate ?

--
John
  #6  
Old September 4th 03, 06:25 PM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

John Laird wrote:

Muscle may be heavier (slightly)


Apparently muscle is three times as dense for the same weight of fat, so
if you build muscle you get slimmer, even if you stay at the same
weight.

I've been doing a bit of weight training for a few months now and have
been a little disheartened that I'm not losing weight as fast as I'd
like. However, my muscles have definitely grown a bit so I must be
losing fat, even if the kitchen scales can't tell me that.

but apparently it also raises your metabolism.


It does indeed. Muscles require calories to maintain so the bigger they
are the more calories you consume, even if sedentiary. In fact many
body builders do very little in the way of cardio-vascular exercise, yet
achieve very low fat levels.

I may have missed your earlier posts about your MHR. You seem to
have two number in mind- how are they derived ?


I mentioned the Karvonen formula to Roger, here's some more info about
it;

**********
"Another element in finding your training heart rate zone is determining
the intensity level at which you should exercise. As a general rule, you
should exercise at an intensity between 50% - 85% of your heart rate
reserve. Your individual level of fitness will ultimately determine
where you fall within this range. Use the following table as a guide for
determining your intensity level:

Beginner or low fitness level . . .50% - 60%
Average fitness level . . . . . . . . 60% - 70%
High fitness level . . . . . . . . . . . 75% - 85%

Now that we've determined and gathered the information needed, we can
pull the information together in the Karvonen Formula:

220 - Age = Maximum Heart Rate
Max Heart Rate - Rest. Heart Rate x Intensity + Rest. Heart Rate =
Training Heart Rate

For example, Sally is 33 yrs old, has a resting heart rate of 75 and
she's just beginning her exercise program (her intensity level will be
50% - 60%.) Sally's training heart rate zone will be 131-142 beats per
minute:

Sally's Minimum Training Heart Rate:
220 - 33 (Age) = 187
187 - 75 (Rest. HR) = 112
112 x .50 (Min. Intensity) + 75 (Rest. HR) = 131 Beats/Minute

Sally's Maximum Training Heart Rate:
220 - 33 (Age) = 187
187 - 75 (Rest. HR) = 112
112 x .60 (Max. Intensity) + 75 (Rest. HR) = 142 Beats/Minute

I found many
references to the 220-age (for men), but also many qualifying
comments along the lines of this being very conservative for fitter
individuals, especially older men. A variant was 220-0.85*age, and
the most extreme 205-0.5*age.


Interesting.

Oh, one last thing. Is your recovery rate not at least as much a
measure of fitness as your maximum work rate ?


I thought that was more of a measure. I think resting heart rate is a
good measure too.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


  #7  
Old September 4th 03, 07:12 PM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

Roger Chapman wrote:

Almost as soon as I started the steep bit my heart rate passed the
formula maximum of 161 bpm and for most of that first ascent it was at
my new maximum of 179 or close to it.


Which proves my suspicion that you go uphill too fast.

A relatively
short rise, another rise in heart beats, this time no more than a
modest 155 bpm and another double summit.


From there it was an easy trudge to Lord's Seat but still enough of a
climb to up the heart rate up to 155. From Lord's Seat there is a
considerable drop to the lowest of this group, Barf, which gave the
least heartache of the day with a mere 153 maximum.


Like all the other hills that day this one had a steep ascent and my
heart rate was soon in the upper 160s.


Even this gentle ascent raised
my heart rate to the high 160s.


but it was still a stiff climb (heart rate low 170s this time)
How can such a small hill be such hard work?


Perhaps because you'd been overdoing it on all the previous climbs?

I think you're missing the point of the heart rate monitor Roger. It's
not meant to be used just to find out what your heart rate is, it's
meant to be an aid to help you modify your activity level to stay within
the optimum training zones. When it goes over the upper limit you
should slow down in order to keep it within the optimum training limit.

Secondly I am worried that when I set what I consider a reasonable
pace for a steep hill the heart rate monitor tells me I am working

very
close to maximum heart rate.


This indicates to me that what you consider to be a reasonable pace for
climbing a steep hill is too fast. I always knew that to be the case in
terms of my own capabilities, but I never knew how your body was
handling it. Now it seems to me that you are pushing yourself too hard
on the ascents.

Thirdly however hard I walk I don't seem able to shed any weight.


Well walking hard isn't the optimum method for shedding weight. The
"fat burning" zone requires far less effort, but can be maintained for
much longer, which is the whole point. Exercising for a long time at a
moderate pace is better for fat burning than burning a lot of calories
quickly over a relatively short period of time.

OK I
will sweat out a few lbs of water but that goes back on within 24
hours as a rule.


Generally due to eating. I've been reading an awful lot about fitness
and weight loss over the last few months I've noticed two points that
have been repeatedly stressed. One is that in order to lose weight you
must use more calories than you eat. It's a simple equation. If you go
out and burn 3000 calories on a walk and then eat 3000 calories when you
get home, you won't lose weight. It's not enough to simply exercise,
you have to eat less too.

For most people it's sufficient to eat the same amount as normal and do
extra exercise, but the temptation after exercise is to eat more!

The second point I've read about repeatedly is DIET! Not diet in the
sense of starving yourself but diet in the sense of eating good healthy
foods. This is linked to eating less calories, but there's more to it
than that.

The number one enemy seems to be sugar. It's too complex to going into
in detail, but it's not bad simply because of the high calorie content,
it's primarily bad because of the sugar highs and lows. When you eat
refined sugar (also refined white bread etc.) it boosts blood sugar
levels which gives you an initial high, followed by a low a little later
on. This low causes more cravings for sugar, so you end up in a vicious
circle. I think if you exclude sugar from your diet it reduces cravings
for food in general, so you tend to eat less overall.

As for the infamous Atkins diet, which apparently encourages you to eat
as much fat and protein as you want, while excluding carbohydrates, all
the stuff I've read suggests that there is definitely something to that,
but I don't think you need to be so extreme as to cut out carbs
completely, and eating as much fat as you want isn't a good idea either.

What I'm doing now is a *low* carbohydrate higher protein, *good* fat
and *no* sugar diet. The low carbohydrate bit means eating plenty of
fruit (fructose is okay as part of fruit) and vegetables, but less
starchy carbs, like bread and potatoes (white bread is bad because it's
refined, potatoes are high in calories so eat less), and of course no
sugar! Eating plenty of vegetables helps to fill you up, without
filling you with too many calories.

Eating more protein than is normally recommended is actually very good
for those who exercise a lot, because it helps to build and repair
muscle. Active people need a lot more protein than sedentiary folk.
But it should be protein with very little saturated fat, so lean meat is
okay, chicken is good, fish is better.

As for fat, the body needs fat, so don't avoid all fat, just avoid the
saturated fats. Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are very healthy, and are
found in fish like tuna and sardines, so it's good to eat lots of those.
Cottage cheese is really good too, since there's very little fat in it.

It's also good to eat 5 or 6 small meals throughout the day, rather than
2 or 3 big ones. They digest better and give constant energy.

If weight loss is the goal it's important to eat fewer calories, but not
too few, otherwise your body thinks it's starving and slows down your
metabolism to stop losing fat. It's important to boost the metabolism
through exercise and eat regularly enough to convince your body that it
isn't starving. Best to lose weight slowly (1/2 pound per week) rather
than go on a crash diet and invoke a starvation response.

Since changing to this diet I've felt a lot better, with constant energy
levels rather than the ups and downs I always used to experience in my
sugar days. I've been getting used to smaller meals too and I honestly
believe that I'm not eating so much without sugar in my diet.

However, I have lapsed a few times, eating the occasional cake or sugary
cereal, and have often woken up the next day feeling like crap, which
convinces me that sugar is to be avoided. The occasional drink also
seems detrimental. If you really must drink, I think that wine or
spirits would probably be better than beer because there are fewer
calories. Red wine is probably the healthiest.

I'll stress this again since I've read it so many times - there's no
point doing regular fitness and/or weight training if you don't combine
it with a good diet - apparently that's the reason so many training
regimes don't work for many people, because they aren't combining it
with good eating.

Totals - 13.13 miles and 4400 feet of ascent in 5 hours 44 minutes
(excluding intermissions)

So all in all should have been quite an easy day - not that it felt
that way.


Sorry Roger, but all that distance and ascent in less than six hours is
not what I'd consider easy, so I'm not surprised it didn't feel that
way.

Why not try using the heart rate monitor in the way that it's intended
to be used? By keeping your heart rate within recommended limits you
should be able to keep going longer and may not be so knackered at the
end of it.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


  #8  
Old September 4th 03, 07:23 PM
Paul Rooney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:12:10 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
wrote:
snip
This indicates to me that what you consider to be a reasonable pace for
climbing a steep hill is too fast. I always knew that to be the case in
terms of my own capabilities, but I never knew how your body was
handling it. Now it seems to me that you are pushing yourself too hard
on the ascents.


It sounds like this to me too. I'd suggest you slow down, Roger! You
may find that if you do so (although you may find it awkward initially
to adopt a slower regular pace) you will be repaid in terms of fitness
in the long run, particularly in terms of lowering your end of walk
knackered quotient.
I'd also strongly urge you to have your chest pain checked out. I know
no-one likes to consider the possibility that their chest pain is
serious, but getting it checked out is definitely the sensible thing
to do.

--
Paul
My Lake District walking site:
http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

You can sponsor me for the London Marathon at:
http://www.justgiving.com/london2004
  #9  
Old September 4th 03, 07:26 PM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

The Reid wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that exercise transfers fat to
muscle


You are of course joking there?

so you become more greek god than fat slob but at the same
weight.


Yes, my point exactly, and slimmer too at the same weight.

It might be interesting to measure waist over period as
well as weight?


You should notice when you find your trousers falling down...

I also find walking increases appetite with disasteruos results.


What do you eat when walking? I'm wondering how much sugary snacks
contribute to this phenomenon. If you snack on sugary stuff to help
give you energy during a walk, that will cause highs and lows which
cause more sugary cravings, and so on. Then you feel the need to eat
some proper food at the end of the walk, and as we all know, many
walkers like to end the day with a few pints.

No wonder these people put on weight!

I strongly suspect that a large greasy breakfast would supply energy
throughout a day's walk far better than snacking on sugar.

In fact, from what I've been reading, if you avoid sugar and processed
carbs in your diet you can train your body to burn fat more efficiently.
If you keep eating simple carbs your body will always use that in
preference to fat, so isn't very efficient at burning fat. But if you
cut out the simple carbs your body will have to burn fat, so will become
better at it with practice. Thus you shouldn't have to snack so much
during a walk (and a couple of strong cups of coffee before you start
will help the fat to burn).

As for protein, your body will burn muscle in preference to fat if it
doesn't have any carbs available, *unless* you give it a good reason not
to burn muscle, i.e. by exercising it. Many people who diet and
exercise in order to lose fat, will lose a lot of muscle too, so it's
actually a good idea to do a bit of weight training to help build muscle
whilst losing fat. If your body is regularly using its muscles it will
be more inclined to burn fat instead of protein, since it needs the
muscles. This is also a good reason to eat more protein.

Of course, I should make the distinction between "weight training" and
"body building". Lifting a few weights doesn't automatically mean you
are going to turn into Arnold Schwarzenegger, there are different
techniques you can use. Light weights and high reps are better for
those who simply want to "tone up", as opposed to building arms the
thickness of tree trunks.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


  #10  
Old September 4th 03, 07:33 PM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Worries! (TR)(long, boring)

Boo wrote:

A bout of Atkins this year has seen me lose nearly 2 more.


What's the basic synopsis of the Atkins diet? I don't know all the
details. It's not healthy to avoid carbs for too long is it?

I think the excercise (especially if its
walking, at which we are all pretty efficient) needs to be prolonged
to have any effect.


Yeah. I think that cycling is probably more efficient (and probably
more pleasant) than walking for fat burning. Oddly enough you can
maintain a higher heart rate with less effort with cycling than you can
with walking. Getting the same heart rate with walking takes more
effort (heart rate and effort are not the same thing) than with cycling,
since you have to carry your body weight, whereas a bicycle carries you.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OK, I'll go back to boring running posts... np426z Running 22 July 19th 04 08:11 AM
Very, very boring! John HUDSON Weights 0 January 24th 04 03:56 PM
Body for Life wrap-up (long and boring) Wendy Marsden Weights 37 August 7th 03 01:52 AM
There for the ticking (TR, long, boring) RJ Webb Walking in the UK 0 July 15th 03 11:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.